











































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































l 

V-v >ON °° ^ ^o °^ ^ 

vv, , V ^V°% u 

fcA <&> A jA^sPAl O V 


■; >' ° 
° 


■ «g|S’ v°Pv * tSIIP 5 ° PP >-.P 

‘ypV .. v^v\ to v*; 

*■ W <B ,J\\ 0,2? //>, -_ ^cv Pv *" vQlf!l0^ * VP x'V ^ ^\^V//% O P 

'frs’ S Jim * P ~ PrP? 2 

^ .3 xv^ik^a/ ^ \ % 4v/aS "^AxvvV ►«• C* „D ^ 

■S J 

* 


V*»» 

% P 

o 

o 

” «?' J ’» * ^WfK# * /$^tjts °o 

* <>y v k a *%£jmr -v <v m* k * 

4 ,Cr x), ^ . B $ s /V <!P 

p^o, 4 ^ A?Xdi\X 

J * * Py. -V *> jW^L Pl V 

°'^Kj - v 

V* ' " 


1/1 op A* 

* ■ ov 

, '^SJW * *>° X. ' TWKg 

P '■». ***'*.®^ ^OH 0 

, <V * 11 PX *> * ' f * v ., 

) O < C6 _^y 4f ft A. A 

o 

2 : 

o 


VP c£” * 

*&<? 1 

IV , ««# ° °o 

•% -v ^k <V ^ ft _ _ 

*x* 4 ^ A LI , <X *o*r* 

/* c t: t ' °o /V *-* 

tt, c s vX\\V&. ,« w . O A> 

O 


cr * 


'A* O W 7 11 (^HH nfray * \ x -t* )£ 

.4 o * * .O^i * |?pLyPtf o /^Oa *. ^ 

°° ^ ^ »Mmk * 5 ^ 


° <0 

b ^ ^^ \ r> 

^ ^ ^ + %t> s ^ * 

*q? °§mt » *+* 0 

^ “ s " o 


’bV' * ijSf^f * 

* >P^, 

*.-. *^ % *. i„V >3 "°’*^’ 

4> ^ o ^W 9 * A «. * -' 

% *#<$ O r* vy 


'»n * 


„ y»o K oO ^ t#o V‘ 

r v y y^ //<■ % 

- ^^5 ' - - 

w YK ^ ^ ^ 

* ^ one, ^ ^^ S ^ 

o°\*^v°o AW' 


. _ *<r 

0 

c-> o ' n ” '^^ilPi^ 7 0 'b 

w A v jv « ^vmAZf vv y 

c° NG ^ V 0 XX ^ ^*r\ xW 

V «* ^ *pfe: 

^. 0 ° ^■'♦oNO^y . 'O, '* 

-■ 4 >X'jz:*;% /‘ , ‘ o< 

' ‘ ' '' ; j 


V'V 

, ?%#*- » w& * 

0 4r A <tk * Mgr -v <V 

^O JO. J."* oNGi, “V ^ * * S .« L, i 

cr t° NG ^ *o. <& 

V^cy 

K ^MI\^S >vr o <l!N y ni ^ ' d\ i/ 1 ”^feiSV^Njs 

* * O * V^t * O C °y % ' « ^ * 4°°* * - , 0 N ° 

***+ V^ V Oft 

^ ^ ^ ^W/V) o ^ <T jriHOfe * v^. 






» ^ » 

^ ^ 'Ox ^ 

<✓ ^O » Jv" 4 '* _lP X J? t}. 

1* 4 .« l, «* <f. ’ c^ C<> SG « # ^O 

^ <«. 0° .* °o ■<*• 

ft 


1 I 
O aV^V o 

>* ^ ^-.■ _. . 

A ,. v* ^ 



OV - ^ 

* AO<, , 

, n * V° ^ ft ^ ^N°° si? -■ - - C ^ ^ 

a* V 


z il s 
* ^ 0 


.' v //:p\ , ' n 



' * «» » •%y^ . Mt'o '^T.,<S* 

o Wi r ^ J k »®i® ® a^-V 

:^X° * l >^>oo ’ 

ix % VK y.' <f,, -o3^ Cr. 

^ ^OHO^ ^ 04 . ' 

«* <y> ^ t 


pK <^,' axP CV 

ftft ^ v ONO° 

* * y v v °% XP 

)Mv% * Y>>tV •» «//A o Vftcfb 


? «: 4 Mig:; 

^ v i, \V° * 0 ^ goho *,V * * >V1^ 

' v A M//^ + '7v> , ^ ^ cPpv>^ ^ «v 4y ^ 

ft O -v 






^4- 

X * ” aAP, °o 

i»r ^ >v „ y -A 

/com,, <V 0 ^* 

3J- c 4^~ v ❖ 

■<< 


P-P?. * • ,,V-“"’>\- • ..V"’ •;p. - • .>/'*■■ 
\/M A •• < *‘* v ■• 



iV®V7#Vf# ^r 

.- <f v \ \w/ /\ vro/ A/.W/ 

:Ai’; s§: -Hi K. i(t&; X -I 


% P>\. 

‘ V*_ A 

3 P# 


s * ft 



^ ‘v^^ft^ ^ o 0 ^ 
Vx ^NO 0 X? s *0 ° 
^ V O w^ P °* 


^**.ii »px\ 

V/ 


<> A * 

i X-^ ; 

® aJvVA I 

^ X? v c 


<y> rf» ^iivPNP 5 P or -^P p 
/*! rf> VpP 5 " Pt*' CV, i 

*’'A >ss 7y^ 

^ 4y ^ rA /Vl o a 



AA^ o ^y^Ppv? P cy 5 ^p. 

o ivJpXf ft, -*r Xi> <v T -<? <P 

“y-Vc«,V * 5 s y^ “*y * ■ 

• * - * O .A fX \X 


./ 'PP"aPP‘ > P^ 

o°^iP« G P°o A 





^ -fillb ^ t€ 

j- ^ o ; # k,, 0 o <£r l O> *> 

^"y-^-V ^sk-X 

°V?* .'|®U «/»lfe\ < 


///7 ^ v . 7 

l=jr ° vyA, o 7///w\\vr «, 

^ .<& 

'/ t ' 1 "/V 0 ’‘’‘o'^‘ 

^ ^-*. rV * 


^ ^ 4* ft 

</* -V 

» W * 

* t 

v %r ,»V <fc ' 

° c^- *■ 

° J 

O o V//WWV* * 

* ** V^AV* 

TJ 


/ t *o 9t/ v *n ** 

.V ^ v V;4^\ /y 

£y 


, * ^ '-’ ft ^Sxya^k A ^ . aP* a. ffiJ///X + VA a * <sivO\\VJk t/» 

^ « Mt^» *+<? °*&km* +o? *&mp% *+& f'llrl®; 

\ :f|f ; >mS: *°% AO - - s ™‘ 

Sr* ^ Xr -c> .r elw * 


3V * 

>< 


•w mw ^ 1 o <C>Ofc , 

^ *y^ Or * 

J? * + *, V*»«»’a?>* 

i; z$mm* ® #»l£t : W®M* '‘^ It 

l* j’X’^jms \w//\’M*‘/V*---^ <*- -«& • 

° **' w -- ° V° -*^8^ °^ 4 ^ - c **^* ‘ 


o 

r ^ * *»■ « 11 

°0 4^ ^ 

* "ov * 

’ * v , 40 '*°4.^ *7 i . ^ y^s y 

v ^ °% Qo ^PV ^rv A V : 

■“ - O ^ 

o v . P t- 


„ (O'’ -{t t * 6 

. „ r o , ,-t? ^ 

- °^ 4 <• 

* *ov * 

* £+4 9 



* Ur rgj^ nrj^( z>- \ vJ A 

*W&* v°^v t®^= ^ 

% +f^2jW * _o ^ * J* q~ ^ z 

%;•” , ifeA ,3KI 
•V«* f^4'i \. 

/ ^ v \ I w/ /\ m* ^ v \ \ . 

ZC* ^ LI t't&*°*** ^ oNG^ <. Ui^^° 

, 7 » . w ft “r^ooAVJA. 




«is«sa»- "o'* °^1B* »iiW* ^ 0> « 5 ^^: '9> tMK* 

»afe; AO. ,Sw* »P<), * ^«?^e ■4 0 a ® 

- :imt\ %<? "'ll: -' 



Vk^ A^ ^ * * S 

°o 


> < 
SIT.* ^ A° 

O % ^ ^ 

•. 

O o 11 

ft» / *% y yV o 

^ ^ <j 


T -^n * 4lO * 

^ / C n - 

. Q,. 


u r 

>P^ 


^ <. * ^ ^3S 0 ° ^ H * O ^ ^ ,V 

<k 

V ^ v \ \ 

* :>^>% ' 

» ^ W *»W' 


Vx ^o *1 

sf 'sLZ.*-’ * 

° ^12, * ^ov * =■ j»5 » ■ w 

*^S* ’HH^ 0 ^ 

b *TOo° \ '^K* ^ «b *», 

* ff n c, * * > V^> N <y ^*o A ^ 

,,.«•; ■ w -m^/m-S/fm? 
l - 


i> W A 

: 

^V° . w/ (i( V* 

> <$*',* *'* V V fc v1 °*ji v* 

0 -^* r ?1SM ^ 



►*» ^ 

.V.O-' *i 

_ A A ^ ■J.'f ° Ojj. '»Q v 

« i, *«V• 1 0 ^ o'” A " A** ^ ,cr‘°: c v^o-, 

^ ^ .* **#?&,*+%*. cr ^ cs5^wr. o 

o 

5Q 


^ c5>^ j af ° o 

r <» a? «V ^ a, .VV’ yv o 

(f cO» = A " * * ,« Z‘%\ 

. ^ 1a a> V ^ «* .V s Jew/Ss** T 

- “ v-o* ® * W * 

■- * S ® B *; ^°y, * 

-w « V" °n “ 

a no’ , * o °vj> *»i-l 

A- v 4 ks?/w.%. & Z j$> : 

& . Am o D Mia * v-v ^ 

^ _ ;/\l« • 

-A:—;< - ^ 



' ^',;.:>■ • • -V^ ” Ur f?5s@i P^k* « . X -f« Xr 

\^ .-Jfe; WAV .-J&-, W-- 

* v z « c-.p_ 14 s^a ivZ'y o 


•V>- ♦ «7MBT^r > .V -<y. v C o 

^^ ^ *+r**+*s* ^* 

'o J> v- L, *V^ 

* y -V ^ 

* r ov * 

“i ^ d^x «a 

❖ O ' p - 

.M**^ 



. *JmrS ■r% “w* ^ 

b.^,, a s A ., y.’* <, o , i’»'* M ^ ^ 

4>v 6^ co« G ^ ^o 4 ^ 

’ °o AS* J °o> 4 

; *m^* V r^PlB* 

* v O^K ♦ o 30/, * ^ 



F T ■*«^>'\° ^ 

^ 4 P . ^ONO 0 a^ < 

<y a 4 ^ v V 

4a* 7 ft .-O ■£►, -J** t\ 


; ‘ y o4’ * 

* >py, ' 

ra > C ~ Z &J) S & ♦ O Mb- ^ 

°0, *> A v aP ^ 

* o ^ 

a °% 06 .4?V 





:>. ^o*x* nSGi '-V 

X <fsXZ'' 

* 4.0 * * 















I 


! 

« 

' 


Ji 


* 


■> 

\ 

\ 


\ 

V 

< 

t 

i 

\ 



TD 195 
. E4 

C E5835 
2015 
v. 1 
Copy 1 


J.S.NRC 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

*eople and the Environment 


NUREG-2168, Vol. 1 


Environmental Impact 
Statement for an Early Site 
Permit (ESP) at the PSEG Site 

Final Report 


Chapters 1 to 5 


U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
Office of New Reactors 
Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Regulatory Branch 
Philadelphia District 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
Philadelphia, PA 19107 




US Army Corps 
of Engineers * 










AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS 
IN NRC PUBLICATIONS 


NRC Reference Material 

As of November 1999, you may electronically access 
NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at 
NRC’s Library at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html . Publicly 
released records include, to name a few, NUREG-series 
publications; Federal Register notices; applicant, 
licensee, and vendor documents and correspondence; 
NRC correspondence and internal memoranda; bulletins 
and information notices; inspection and investigative 
reports; licensee event reports; and Commission papers 
and their attachments. 

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC regulations, 
and Title 10, “Energy,” in the Code of Federal Regulations 
may also be purchased from one of these two sources. 

1. The Superintendent of Documents 

U.S. Government Publishing Office 
Mail Stop IDCC 
Washington, DC 20402-0001 
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov 
Telephone: (202) 512-1800 
Fax: (202) 512-2104 

2. The National Technical Information Service 

5301 Shawnee Rd., Alexandria, VA 22312-0002 
www.ntis.gov 

1 -800-553-6847 or, locally, (703) 605-6000 

A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is 
available free, to the extent of supply, upon written 
request as follows: 

Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of Administration 
Publications Branch 
Washington, DC 20555-0001 
E-mail: distribution.resource@nrc.gov 
Facsimile: (301) 415-2289 

Some publications in the NUREG series that are posted 
at NRC’s Web site address www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 
doc-collections/nuregs are updated periodically and may 
differ from the last printed version. Although references to 
material found on a Web site bear the date the material 
was accessed, the material available on the date cited 
may subsequently be removed from the site. 


Non-NRC Reference Material 

Documents available from public and special technical 
libraries include all open literature items, such as books, 
journal articles, transactions, Federal Register notices, 
Federal and State legislation, and congressional reports. 
Such documents as theses, dissertations, foreign reports 
and translations, and non-NRC conference proceedings 
may be purchased from their sponsoring organization. 

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a 
substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are 
maintained at— 

The NRC Technical Library 
Two White Flint North 
11545 Rockville Pike 
Rockville, MD 20852-2738 

These standards are available in the library for reference 
use by the public. Codes and standards are usually 
copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating 
organization or, if they are American National Standards, 
from — 

American National Standards Institute 

11 West 42nd Street 
New York, NY 10036-8002 
www.ansi.org 
(212) 642-4900 


Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated only in 
laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including technical speci¬ 
fications; or orders, not in NUREG-series publications. The 
views expressed in contractorprepared publications in this 
series are not necessarily those of the NRC. 

The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and adminis¬ 
trative reports and books prepared by the staff (NUREG- 
XXXX) or agency contractors (NUREG/CR-XXXX), (2) 
proceedings of conferences (NUREG/CP-XXXX), (3) reports 
resulting from international agreements (NUREG/IA-XXXX), 
(4) brochures (NUREG/BR-XXXX), and (5) compilations of 
legal decisions and orders of the Commission and Atomic 
and Safety Licensing Boards and of Directors’ decisions 
under Section 2.206 of NRC’s regulations (NUREG-0750). 

DISCLAIMER: This report was prepared as an account 
of work sponsored by an agency of the U.S. Government. 
Neither the U.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor 
any employee, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, 
or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third 
party’s use, or the results of such use, of any information, 
apparatus, product, or process disclosed in this publication, 
or represents that its use by such third party would not 
infringe privately owned rights. 


























NUREG-2168, Vol. 1 


^U.S.NRC 

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Protecting People and the Environment 


Environmental Impact 
Statement for an Early Site 
Permit (ESP) at the PSEG Site 

Final Report 


Chapters 1 to 5 

Manuscript Completed: October 2015 
Date Published: November 2015 



U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
Office of New Reactors 
Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Regulatory Branch 
Philadelphia District 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
Philadelphia, PA 19107 



US Army Corps 
of Engineers? 








2015 


461627 


COVER SHEET 


Responsible Agency: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of New Reactors. U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers, Philiadelphia District, is cooperating agency involved in the 
preparation of this document. 

Title: Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the PSEG Site Final 
Report (NUREG-2168). PSEG is located in Salem County, New Jersey 
For additional information or copies of this document contact: 

Allen Fetter, Senior Environmental Project Manager 

Environmental Project Branch 

Division of New Reactor Licensing 

Office of New Reactors 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Mail Stop T-6C32 

11555 Rockville Pike 

Rockville, Maryland 20852 

Phone: 1-800-368-5642, extension 8556 

Email: Allen.Fetter@nrc.gov 


ABSTRACT 


This environmental impact statement (EIS) has been prepared in response to an application 
submitted on May 25, 2010 to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by PSEG 
Power, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear, LLC (PSEG), for an early site permit (ESP). The proposed 
actions requested in the PSEG application are (1) the NRC issuance of an ESP for the PSEG 
Site located adjacent to the existing Hope Creek Generating Station and Salem Generating 
Station, Units 1 and 2, in Lower Alloways Creek Township, Salem County, New Jersey, and (2) 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permit action on a Department of the Army permit 
application to perform certain construction activities on the site. The USACE is a cooperating 
agency with the NRC in preparing this EIS and participates collaboratively on the review team. 

This EIS includes the review team’s analysis that considers and weighs the environmental 
impacts of building and operating a new nuclear power plant at the proposed PSEG Site, at 
alternative sites and mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding adverse impacts. 
The EIS also addresses Federally listed species, cultural resources, essential fish habitat 
issues, and plant cooling system design alternatives. 

The EIS includes the evaluation of the proposed action’s impacts on waters of the United States 
pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors 
Appropriation Act of 1899. The USACE will conduct a public interest review in accordance with 
the guidelines promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under authority of 
Section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act. The public interest review, which will be addressed in 


November 2015 


NUREG-2168 




Abstract 


the USACE permit decision document, will include an alternatives analysis to determine the 
least environmentally damaging practicable alternative. 

After considering the environmental aspects of the proposed NRC action, the NRC staffs 
recommendation to the Commission is that the ESP be issued as requested. 

This recommendation is based on (1) the application submitted by PSEG, including Revision 4 
of the Environmental Report (ER), and the PSEG responses to requests for additional 
information from the NRC and USACE staffs; (2) consultation with Federal, State, Tribal, and 
local agencies; (3) the staffs independent review; (4) the staffs consideration of comments 
related to the environmental review that were received during the public scoping process and 
the public comment period following the publication of the draft EIS; and (5) the assessments 
summarized in this EIS, including the potential mitigation measures identified in the ER and this 
EIS. The USACE will issue its Record of Decision based, in part, on this EIS. 

PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT STATEMENT 

This NUREG contains and references information collection requirements that are subject to the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These information collections were 
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), approval numbers 3150-0014, 
3150-0011, 3150-0021, 3150-0151, 3150-0008, 3150-0002, and 3150-0093. 

PUBLIC PROTECTION NOTICATION 

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for 
information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. 


NUREG-2168 has been reproduced 
from the best available copy. 


NUREG-2168 


IV 


November 2015 





CONTENTS 


Page 

ABSTRACT. jjj 

FIGURES .xiii 

TABLES .xvii 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .xxiii 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS. XXXV 

1.0 INTRODUCTION .1-1 

1.1 Background.1-1 

1.1.1 Plant Parameter Envelope.1-2 

1.1.2 Site Preparation and Preliminary Construction Activities.1-2 

1.1.3 NRC ESP Application Review.1-3 

1.1.4 USACE Permit Application Review.1-6 

1.1.5 Preconstruction Activities.1-7 

1.1.6 Cooperating Agencies.1-7 

1.1.7 Concurrent NRC Reviews.1-9 

1.2 The Proposed Federal Actions.1-9 

1.3 The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Actions.1-10 

1.3.1 NRC Proposed Action.1-10 

1.3.2 The USACE Permit Action.1-11 

1.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Actions.1-12 

1.5 Compliance and Consultations.1-13 

1.6 Report Contents.1-13 

2.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .2-1 

2.1 Site Location.2-1 

2.2 Land Use.2-5 

2.2.1 The Site and Vicinity.2-5 

2.2.2 Offsite Areas.2-15 

2.2.3 The Region.2-21 

2.3 Water.2-24 

2.3.1 Hydrology.2-24 

2.3.2 Water Use.2-42 

2.3.3 Water Quality.2-45 

2.3.4 Water Monitoring.2-51 

2.4 Ecology.2-52 

2.4.1 Terrestrial and Wetland Ecology.2-52 

2.4.2 Aquatic Ecology.2-83 

2.5 Socioeconomics.2-117 


November 2015 


v 


NUREG-2168 







































Contents 


2.5.1 Demographics.2-118 

2.5.2 Community Characteristics.2-124 

2.6 Environmental Justice.2-145 

2.6.1 Methodology.2-146 

2.6.2 Scoping and Outreach.2-155 

2.6.3 Special Circumstances of the Minority and Low-Income Populations.2-155 

2.6.4 Migrant Populations.2-156 

2.6.5 Environmental Justice Summary.2-156 

2.7 Historic and Cultural Resources.2-156 

2.7.1 Cultural Background.2-159 

2.7.2 Historic and Cultural Resources at the PSEG Site and Offsite Areas.2-161 

2.7.3 Consultation.2-166 

2.7.4 Post-Draft EIS Consultation Activities.2-167 

2.8 Geology.2-170 

2.9 Meteorology and Air Quality.2-172 

2.9.1 Climate.2-173 

2.9.2 Air Quality.2-176 

2.9.3 Atmospheric Dispersion.2-178 

2.9.4 Meteorological Monitoring.2-180 

2.10 Nonradiological Health.2-185 

2.10.1 Public and Occupational Health.2-186 

2.10.2 Noise.2-187 

2.10.3 Transportation.2-188 

2.10.4 Electromagnetic Fields.2-189 

2.11 Radiological Environment.2-190 

2.12 Related Federal Projects and Consultation.2-192 

3.0 SITE LAYOUT AND PLANT PARAMETER ENVELOPE .3-1 

3.1 External Appearance and Site Layout.3-1 

3.2 Plant Parameter Envelope.3-4 

3.2.1 Plant Water Use.3-7 

3.2.2 Proposed Plant Structures.3-11 

3.3 Construction and Preconstruction Activities.3-18 

3.3.1 Site Preparation.3-19 

3.3.2 Power Block Construction.3-22 

3.3.3 Construction Workforce.3-24 

3.3.4 Summary of Resource Commitments During Construction and 

Preconstruction.3-24 

3.4 Operational Activities.3-25 

3.4.1 Description of Cooling System Operational Modes.3-25 

3.4.2 Plant-Environmental Interfaces During Operation.3-25 


NUREG-2168 


VI 


November 2015 









































Contents 


3.4.3 Radioactive Waste Management Systems.3-27 

3.4.4 Nonradioactive Waste Management Systems.3-28 

4.0 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS AT THE PROPOSED SITE.4-1 

4.1 Land-Use Impacts.4-4 

4.1.1 The Site and Vicinity.4-4 

4.1.2 Offsite Areas.4-8 

4.2 Water-Related Impacts.4-12 

4.2.1 Hydrological Alterations.4-13 

4.2.2 Water-Use Impacts.4-18 

4.2.3 Water-Quality Impacts.4-21 

4.2.4 Hydrological Monitoring.4-24 

4.3 Ecological Impacts.4-24 

4.3.1 Terrestrial and Wetland Impacts.4-25 

4.3.2 Aquatic Impacts.4-44 

4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts.4-54 

4.4.1 Physical Impacts.4-55 

4.4.2 Demography.4-60 

4.4.3 Economic Impacts to the Community.4-64 

4.4.4 Infrastructure and Community Service Impacts.4-69 

4.4.5 Summary of Socioeconomic Impacts.4-79 

4.5 Environmental Justice Impacts.4-79 

4.5.1 Health Impacts.4-80 

4.5.2 Physical and Environmental Impacts.4-80 

4.5.3 Socioeconomic Impacts.4-82 

4.5.4 Subsistence and Special Conditions.4-82 

4.5.5 Migrant Labor.4-83 

4.5.6 Summary of Environmental Justice Impacts.4-83 

4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources.4-83 

4.7 Meteorological and Air-Quality Impacts.4-86 

4.7.1 Construction and Preconstruction Activities.4-86 

4.7.2 Traffic (Emissions)..4-88 

4.7.3 Summary.4-89 

4.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts.4-89 

4.8.1 Public and Occupational Health.4-90 

4.8.2 Noise Impacts.4-94 

4.8.3 Impacts of Transporting Construction Materials and Construction 

Personnel to the PSEG Site.4-95 

4.8.4 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts.4-97 

4.9 Radiation Health Impacts.4-97 

November 2015 vii NUREG-2168 








































Contents 


4.9.1 Direct Radiation Exposures.4-97 

4.9.2 Radiation Exposures from Gaseous Effluents.4-98 

4.9.3 Radiation Exposures from Liquid Effluents.4-99 

4.9.4 Total Dose to Site-Preparation Workers.4-99 

4.9.5 Summary of Radiological Health Impacts.4-100 

4.10 Nonradioactive Waste Impacts.4-100 

4.10.1 Impacts to Land.4-100 

4.10.2 Impacts to Water.4-101 

4.10.3 Impacts to Air.4-101 

4.10.4 Summary of Impacts.4-102 

4.11 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During 

Construction Activities.4-102 

4.12 Summary of Preconstruction and Construction Impacts.4-106 

5.0 OPERATIONAL IMPACTS AT THE PROPOSED SITE.5-1 

5.1 Land-Use Impacts.5-1 

5.1.1 The Site and Vicinity.5-1 

5.1.2 Offsite Areas.5-3 

5.2 Water-Related Impacts.5-4 

5.2.1 Hydrological Alterations.5-5 

5.2.2 Water-Use Impacts.5-6 

5.2.3 Water-Quality Impacts.5-10 

5.2.4 Water Monitoring.5-16 

5.3 Ecological Impacts.5-17 

5.3.1 Terrestrial and Wetland Impacts Related to Operations.5-17 

5.3.2 Aquatic Impacts Related to Operations.5-30 

5.4 Socioeconomic Impacts.5-42 

5.4.1 Physical Impacts.5-43 

5.4.2 Demography.5-48 

5.4.3 Economic Impacts to the Community.5-50 

5.4.4 Infrastructure and Community Service Impacts.5-55 

5.4.5 Summary of Socioeconomics.5-61 

5.5 Environmental Justice.5-62 

5.5.1 Health Impacts.5-62 

5.5.2 Physical and Environmental Impacts.5-63 

5.5.3 Socioeconomic Impacts.5-65 

5.5.4 Subsistence and Special Conditions.5-65 

5.5.5 Migrant Labor.5-66 

5.5.6 Summary of Environmental Justice Impacts.5-66 

5.6 Historic and Cultural Resources.5-66 

NUREG-2168 viii November 2015 








































Contents 


5.7 Meteorology and Air Quality Impacts.5-67 

5.7.1 Air-Quality Impacts.5-68 

5.7.2 Cooling System Impacts.5-71 

5.7.3 Transmission Line Impacts.5-75 

5.7.4 Summary.5-76 

5.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts.5-76 

5.8.1 Etiological Agents.5-76 

5.8.2 Noise.5-78 

5.8.3 Acute Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.5-79 

5.8.4 Chronic Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.5-79 

5.8.5 Occupational Health.5-80 

5.8.6 Impacts of Transporting Operations Personnel to the PSEG Site.5-81 

5.8.7 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts.5-82 

5.9 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations.5-82 

5.9.1 Exposure Pathways.5-82 

5.9.2 Radiation Doses to Members of the Public.5-86 

5.9.3 Impacts to Members of the Public.5-88 

5.9.4 Occupational Doses to Workers.5-91 

5.9.5 Impacts to Biota Other than Humans.5-91 

5.9.6 Radiological Monitoring.5-93 

5.10 Nonradiological Waste Impacts.5-94 

5.10.1 Impacts to Land.5-94 

5.10.2 Impacts to Water.5-95 

5.10.3 Impacts to Air.5-95 

5.10.4 Mixed Waste Impacts.5-96 

5.10.5 Summary of Waste Impacts.5-96 

5.11 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents.5-97 

5.11.1 Design Basis Accidents.5-101 

5.11.2 Severe Accidents.5-106 

5.11.3 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives.5-118 

5.11.4 Summary of Postulated Accident Impacts.5-118 

5.12 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Operation.5-118 

5.13 Summary of Operational Impacts.5-123 

6.0 FUEL CYCLE, TRANSPORTATION, AND DECOMMISSIONING.6-1 

6.1 Fuel-Cycle Impacts and Solid-Waste Management.6-1 

6.1.1 Land Use.6-8 

6.1.2 Water Use.6-9 

6.1.3 Fossil Fuel Impacts.6-9 

6.1.4 Chemical Effluents.6-10 


November 2015 


IX 


NUREG-2168 









































Contents 


6.1.5 Radiological Effluents.6-11 

6.1.6 Radiological Wastes.6-13 

6.1.7 Occupational Dose.6-17 

6.1.8 Transportation.6-17 

6.1.9 Summary.6-17 

6.2 Transportation Impacts.6-17 

6.2.1 Transportation of Unirradiated Fuel.6-20 

6.2.2 Transportation of Spent Fuel.6-28 

6.2.3 Transportation of Radioactive Waste.6-40 

6.2.4 Conclusions for Transportation.6-43 

6.3 Decommissioning Impacts.6-44 

7.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .7-1 

7.1 Land Use.7-6 

7.2 Water Use and Quality.7-9 

7.2.1 Water-Use Impacts.7-10 

7.2.2 Water-Quality Impacts.7-14 

7.3 Ecology.7-18 

7.3.1 Terrestrial and Wetlands Resources.7-18 

7.3.2 Aquatic Ecosystem.7-25 

7.4 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice.7-30 

7.4.1 Socioeconomics.7-30 

7.4.2 Environmental Justice.7-33 

7.5 Historic and Cultural Resources.7-34 

7.6 Air Quality.7-36 

7.6.1 Criteria Pollutants.7-36 

7.6.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.7-37 

7.6.3 Summary.7-39 

7.7 Nonradiological Health.7-40 

7.8 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operation.7-42 

7.9 Nonradiological Waste Systems.7-43 

7.10 Postulated Accidents.7-45 

7.11 Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning.7-46 

7.11.1 Fuel Cycle.7-46 

7.11.2 Transportation of Radioactive Material.7-47 

7.11.3 Decommissioning.7-48 

7.11.4 Summary of Cumulative Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and 

Decommissioning Impacts.7-48 

7.12 Conclusions.7-48 

8.0 NEED FOR POWER .8-1 

8.1 Description of Power System.8-3 


NUREG-2168 


x 


November 2015 









































Contents 


8.1.1 Rationale for Choosing New Jersey as the Market Area.8-3 

8.1.2 Structure of Power Markets Serving New Jersey.8-4 

8.1.3 Electric System Reliability in New Jersey.8-7 

8.1.4 Forecasting Model Methodology and Sufficiency Attributes.8-10 

8.2 Power Demand.8-12 

8.2.1 Factors Affecting Power Growth and Demand.8-12 

8.2.2 Historic and Forecast Electricity Demand.8-15 

8.3 Power Supply.8-17 

8.4 Assessment of Need for Power.8-20 

8.5 Conclusion.8-20 

9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES .9-1 

9.1 No-Action Alternative.9-3 

9.2 Energy Alternatives.9-3 

9.2.1 Alternatives Not Requiring New Generation Capacity.9-4 

9.2.2 Alternatives Requiring New Generation Capacity.9-8 

9.2.3 Feasible Discrete New Generating Alternatives.9-20 

9.2.4 Combination of Alternatives.9-36 

9.2.5 Summary Comparison of Alternatives.9-42 

9.3 Alternative Sites.9-44 

9.3.1 Alternative Site-Selection Process.9-45 

9.3.2 Site 4-1.9-56 

9.3.3 Site 7-1.9-106 

9.3.4 Site 7-2.9-147 

9.3.5 Site 7-3.9-186 

9.3.6 Comparison of the Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternative 

Sites.9-227 

9.4 System Design Alternatives.9-232 

9.4.1 Heat Dissipation Systems.9-232 

9.4.2 Circulating Water System Alternatives.9-234 

9.4.3 Summary.9-240 

10.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .10-1 

10.1 Impacts of the Proposed Action.10-3 

10.2 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts.10-4 

10.2.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts during Construction and 

Preconstruction.10-4 

10.2.2 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts during Operation.10-12 

10.3 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity of the 

Human Environment.10-18 

10.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources.10-18 

10.4.1 Irreversible Commitments of Resources.10-19 

November 2015 xi NUREG-2168 







































Contents 


10.4.2 Irretrievable Commitments of Resources.10-20 

10.5 Alternatives to the Proposed Action.10-21 

10.6 Benefit-Cost Balance.10-22 

10.6.1 Benefits.10-23 

10.6.2 Costs.10-27 

10.6.3 Summary of Benefits and Costs.10-32 

10.7 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations.10-33 

11.0 REFERENCES. 11-1 

12.0 INDEX . 12-1 

APPENDIX A CONTRIBUTORS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. A-1 

APPENDIX B ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED. B-1 

APPENDIX C CHRONOLOGY OF NRC AND USACE STAFF ENVIRONMENTAL 
REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE RELATED TO THE PSEG 
APPLICATION FOR AN EARLY SITE PERMIT (ESP) AT THE 
PSEG SITE.C-1 

APPENDIX D SCOPING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES. D-1 

APPENDIX E DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT COMMENTS 

AND RESPONSES. E-1 

APPENDIX F KEY CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE. F-1 

APPENDIX G SUPPORTING INFORMATION AND DATA: POPULATION 

PROJECTIONS AND RADIOLOGICAL DOSE ASSESSMENT. G-1 

APPENDIX H LIST OF AUTHORIZATIONS, PERMITS, AND CERTIFICATIONS. H-1 

APPENDIX I PSEG SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND PLANT PARAMETER 

ENVELOPE VALUES. 1-1 

APPENDIX J PSEG REPRESENTATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS. J-1 

APPENDIX K GREENHOUSE GAS FOOTPRINT ESTIMATES FOR A 

REFERENCE 1,000-MW(E) LIGHT WATER REACTOR (LWR). K-1 


xii 


NUREG-2168 


November 2015 






















FIGURES 


Figure Page 

ES-1 PSEG Site Location and Vicinity.xxv 

ES 2 Map Showing the Locations of Alternative Sites.xxxi 

2-1 PSEG Site Location Vicinity and Region.2-2 

2-2 PSEG Site Utilization Plan.2-3 

2-3 Aerial View of the Existing PSEG Property.2-4 

2-4 PSEG Site and Near Offsite Land Use.2-7 

2-5 NJDEP 2002 Land Use and Land Cover Within the PSEG Site.2-8 

2-6 USACE Jurisdictional Determination Block 26, Lots 2, 4, 4.01, 5, and 5.01, 

Lower Alloways Creek Township.2-11 

2-7 Land Use Within the Vicinity of the PSEG Site.2-13 

2-8 Farmland Resources in the Vicinity of the PSEG Site.2-16 

2-9 Major Transportation Features in the PSEG Site Region.2-17 

2-10 Existing PSEG Transmission Corridors.2-19 

2-11 Land Management Areas along the Proposed Causeway Route.2-22 

2-12 Land Use in the PSEG Site Region.2-23 

2-13 The Delaware River Watershed.2-26 

2-14 Streams on and near the PSEG Site Identified Using the High-Resolution 

USGS National Hydrography Dataset.2-27 

2-15 Annual Discharge at the Trenton USGS Streamflow Gage.2-32 

2-16 Characteristics of the Monthly Discharge During Water Years 1913-2011 at the 

Trenton USGS Streamflow Gage.2-33 

2-17 Cross-Section Through the Southern New Jersey Coastal Plain Aquifer System ....2-37 

2-18 Hydrogeologic Units at the PSEG Site from ER 2.3-23.2-39 

2-19 Surface-Water-Quality Sampling Locations on and Near the PSEG Site.2-46 

2-20 Chloride Data for the HCGS and SGS Groundwater Production Wells for the 

Period 2003-2013.2-51 

2-21 Surface Waters and Desilt Basins On and Near the PSEG Site Providing 

Habitat for Aquatic Resources.2-84 

2-22 Delaware Bay and River Sampling Zones: Zones 1, 2, and 3 Lower Bay; Zones 
4, 5, and 6 Middle Bay; Zones 7 and 8 Upper Bay; Zones 9 through 14 

Delaware River.2-95 

2-23 Local Road Network in the Vicinity of the PSEG Site.2-133 

2-24 Aggregate of Minorities Block Groups Within 50 Mi of the PSEG Site.2-150 

2-25 Hispanic Ethnicity Block Groups Within 50 Mi of the PSEG Site.2-151 

2-26 Black Minority Block Groups Within 50 Mi of the PSEG Site.2-153 

2-27 Low-Income Household Block Groups Within 50 Mi of the PSEG Site.2-154 

2-28 The USACE Permit Area and NRC Direct Area of Potential Effect for Section 

106 review.2-158 

2-29 Underwater Portion of the USACE Permit Area.2-159 

2-30 View of Abel and Mary Nicholson House NHL where the existing NDCT was 

not visible.2-168 


NUREG-2168 


XIII 


November 2015 

































Figures 


2-31 View of Abel and Mary Nicholson House NHL showing existing cooling tower.2-168 

2-32 Stratigraphic Section of the PSEG Site Modified from Site Safety Aanalysis 

Report 2.5.1-34.2-171 

2-33 View of SGS and HCGS Looking West-Northwest from the Existing PSEG 

Meteorological Tower Unit.2-182 

2-34 Existing PSEG Meteorological Tower and Meteorological Building with Backup 

Meteorological Tower in Foreground.2-183 

2- 35 Close-up View of 33-ft Instrument Boom .2-184 

3- 1 Existing Salem Generating Station and Hope Creek Generating Station Site.3-2 

3-2 Plant Water Use.3-9 

3- 3 Photo Simulation Showing the Existing Hope Creek Generating Station Cooling 

Tower, the Existing Hope Creek-Red Lion Transmission Line, the Two Potential 

New Cooling Towers, a Potential New Transmission Line, and the Potential 

New Causeway as Viewed from the Money Island Estuary Platform.3-17 

4- 1 Land Use/Land Cover Impacted by Preconstruction and Construction at the 

PSEG Site.4-6 

4- 2 Acoustic Criteria Isopleths for In-Water and Nearshore Pile-Driving Activities.4-49 

5- 1 Evaluation of Groundwater Drawdown from Onsite Pumping.5-9 

5-2 Predicted PSEG Thermal Plume in Relation to the Approximate Locations of 

the HCGS HDA and the SGS Plume Boundary under Flood Tide Conditions.5-13 

5-3 LMDCT Salt Deposition Rates.5-19 

5-4 Simulations of the Appearance of New Nuclear Power Plant Facilities at the 

PSEG Site from Augustine Beach Access and Collins Beach Road, New Castle 

County, Delaware.5-46 

5-5 Simulations of the Appearance of New Nuclear Power Plant Facilities at the 
PSEG Site and the Proposed Causeway from the Hancock’s Bridge 
Community and the Money Island Estuary Platform in Salem County, New 

Jersey.5-47 

5-6 Exposure Pathways to Humans.5-84 

5- 7 Exposure Pathways to Biota Other than Humans.5-85 

6- 1 The Uranium Fuel Cycle: No-Recycle Option.6-6 

6-2 Illustration of Truck Stop Model.6-32 

8-1 PJM Interconnection, LLC, Service Area.8-5 

8-2 New Jersey Electric Utility Service Areas.8-6 

8-3 Map of the Reliability First Region.8-8 

8-4 DOE-Designated Critical Congestion Area and Congestion Area of Concern in 

the Eastern Interconnection.8-9 

8-5 Actual and Forecast Summer Peak Demand in the PJM RTO 2006-2012.8-11 

8-6 Historic and Projected Electricity Demand in New Jersey 1998-2023 .8-16 

8- 7 Generation Resources by Fuel Type, 2007-2012 .8-18 

9- 1 Map Showing the Locations of PSEG Alternative Sites.9-49 

9-2 County Preserved Farmland at Alternative Site 4-1.9-62 

9-3 Deed of Conservation Restriction Parcel at Alternative Site 4-1 .9-63 

9-4 Wildlife Sanctuaries, Refuges, and Preserves Within the 6-mi Vicinity of 

Alternative Site 4-1. 9-77 

9-5 Aggregate of Minorities Block Groups Within 50 Mi of Site 4-1 .9-97 


NUREG-2168 


XIV 


November 2015 

































Figures 

9-6 Low-Income Block Groups Within 50 Mi of Site 4-1.9-98 

9-7 County Preserved Farmland at Alternative Site 7-1.9-111 

9-8 Wildlife Sanctuaries, Refuges, and Preserves Within the 6-mi Vicinity of 

Alternative Site 7-1.9-123 

9-9 Wildlife Sanctuaries, Refuges, and Preserves within the 6-mi Vicinity of 

Alternative Site 7-2.9-163 

9-10 Deed of Conservation Restriction Parcels at Site 7-3.9-191 

9-11 Wildlife Sanctuaries, Refuges, and Preserves within the 6-mi Vicinity of Site 7-3 ..9-203 


November 2015 


xv 


NUREG-2168 











































































TABLES 


Table Page 

ES-1 Cumulative Impacts on Environmental Resources, Including the Impacts of a 

New Nuclear Power Plant at the PSEG Site.xxvii 

ES-2 Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Energy Alternatives.xxx 

ES-3 Comparison of Environmental Impacts at Alternative Sites.xxxii 

2-1 NJDEP 2002 Land Use and Land Cover Within the Proposed PSEG Site.2-9 

2-2 Land Use in the Vicinity and Region of the PSEG Site.2-14 

2-3 Land Use in the Existing PSEG Transmission Line Corridors and in the Existing 

PSEG Access Road Right-of-Way.2-20 

2-4 Parameters Measured Daily at U.S. Geological Survey Stream Gages in the 

Delaware River near the PSEG Site.2-28 

2-5 Annual Discharge in the Delaware River at Trenton, New Jersey.2-31 

2-6 Reservoirs in the Delaware River Basin with Storages Exceeding 10,000 ac-ft.2-33 

2-7 Approximate Top Elevation and Thickness for Hydrogeologic Units at the 

Northern Portion of the PSEG Site.2-40 

2-8 Threatened, Endangered, and Special Concern Species Potentially Occurring 

in the Vicinity of the PSEG Site.2-63 

2-9 Macroinvertebrates Sampled in Desilt Basins, Onsite Marsh Creeks, Offsite 
Large Marsh Creeks, and Nearshore Delaware River Estuary in the Vicinity of 

the PSEG Site in 2009.2-86 

2-10 Fish Species Sampled in Desilt Basins and Marsh Creeks in the Vicinity of the 

PSEG Site in 2009 and Between 2003 and 2010.2-87 

2-11 Fish Species and Blue Crab Abundance from Bottom and Pelagic Trawl and 
Seining Sampling in the Delaware River Estuary and Near the PSEG Site 

Between 2003 and 2010.2-92 

2-12 Federally and State-Listed Species in the Vicinity of the PSEG Site and 

Existing Transmission Corridors.2-113 

2-13 Recent Population and Growth Rates of Counties in the Economic Impact Area...2-119 

2-14 Population of Counties, Townships and Municipalities Within 10 mi of PSEG.2-119 

2-15 Historical and Projected Populations in the Economic Impact Area and the 

States of Delaware and New Jersey, 1970-2040.2-121 

2-16 Percentage Age and Gender Distribution in the Economic Impact Area.2-122 

2-17 Household Income Distribution Within the Economic Impact Area in 2011 

Inflation-Adjusted Dollars.2-122 

2-18 Racial and Ethnic Distribution Within the Economic Impact Area.2-123 

2-19 Estimates of the Transient and Migrant Worker Populations in the Economic 

Impact Area.2-123 

2-20 2011 Annual Average Labor Force, Employment, and Unemployment in 

Counties of the Impact Area and in the States of New Jersey and Delaware.2-125 

2-21 Annual Unemployment Rates for Counties of the Economic Impact Area and 

the States of New Jersey and Delaware, 2002 to 2011.2-125 

2-22 Total Employment by Industry Type in the Economic Impact Area.2-127 


November 2015 xvii NUREG-2168 


























Tables 


2-23 HCGS and SGS Employee Distribution by State and County as of 2008.2-128 

2-24 Residential Locations of Outage Workers for the Largest Recent Outage at the 

HCGS/SGS Site.2-129 

2-25 Per Capita Income for Counties of the Impact Area and the States of New 

Jersey and Delaware, 2002 to 2011 .2-129 

2-26 Tax Rates for Counties in Economic Impact Area and States.2-130 

2-27 Operation-Related Payroll and Purchases for Materials and Services for HCGS 

and SGS.2-131 

2-28 Annual Average Daily Traffic Counts on Selected Roads Near the PSEG Site.2-134 

2-29 Business and General Aviation Airports Serving the Economic Impact Area.2-135 

2-30 Housing Data for Counties in the Economic Impact Area.2-137 

2-31 Major Water Supply Systems in New Jersey Counties of the Economic Impact 

Area.2-139 

2-32 Public Wastewater Treatment Systems in the Economic Impact Area.2-141 

2-33 Local Law Enforcement Personnel in Counties of the Economic Impact Area.2-143 

2-34 Public School Enrollment, Teachers, and Student-to-Teacher Ratios in the 

Economic Impact Area and State.2-145 

2-35 Statewide Percent Minority Populations and Associated 20 Percentage Point 

Threshold Criteria for the 50-mi Region.2-148 

2-36 Distribution of Census Block Groups Exceeding Environmental Justice 

Thresholds in the Economic Impact Area.2-152 

2-37 Historic Properties within the 4.9-mi Area of Potential Effect that are Visible 

from the PSEG Site.2-165 

2-38 Mean Seasonal and Annual Morning and Afternoon Mixing Heights and Wind 

Speeds at the PSEG Site.2-178 

2-39 Atmospheric Dispersion Factors for Proposed Units 1 and 2 Design Basis 

Accident Calculations.2-179 

2-40 Maximum Annual Average Atmospheric Dispersion and Deposition Factors for 

Evaluation of Normal Effluents for Receptors of Interest.2-180 

2- 41 Existing PSEG Meteorological Instrumentation Performance Specifications.2-185 

3- 1 Plant Water Use.3-8 

3-2 Assumed Schedule for Preconstruction and Construction at the PSEG Site.3-19 

3-3 Summary of Resource Commitments Associated with Preconstruction and 

Construction at the PSEG Site.3-24 

3-4 Annual Estimated Pollutant Emissions from Cooling Towers, Auxiliary Boilers, 

Diesel Generators, and Gas Turbines at a New Nuclear Power Plant at the 

PSEG Site.3-27 

3- 5 Blowdown Constituents and Concentrations in Liquid Effluent Discharge.3-29 

4- 1 Land-Use Changes from Preconstruction and Construction Activities on the 

PSEG Site.4-5 

4-2 Offsite Land-Use Changes from Building the Proposed Causeway.4-9 

4-3 Estimated Acoustic Area of Effect for Fish from Pile-Driving Activities.4-47 

4-4 Estimated Construction Workforce Requirements by Construction Month.4-61 

4-5 Projected Construction Labor Availability and Onsite Labor Requirement.4-63 

4-6 Estimated Population Increase in the Economic Impact Area During the Peak 

Building Period.4-64 

xviii 


NUREG-2168 


November 2015 
































Tables 


4-7 Estimated Annual Purchases of Services and Materials During the Building 

Period.4-65 

4-8 Expected Distribution of Newly Created Workers in the Economic Impact Area 

at Peak Employment.4-67 

4-9 Estimated Increase in Income Tax Revenue Associated with Workforce.4-67 

4-10 Estimated Sales Tax Revenue on Purchases During Building Period.4-69 

4-11 Level of Service Ranges.4-70 

4-12 Traffic Impact Analysis Assumptions.4-71 

4-13 Impacts on Roadways around PSEG Site during Peak Building.4-72 

4-14 Estimated Housing Impacts in the Economic Impact Area.4-74 

4-15 Estimated Water Supply Impacts in the Economic Impact Area.4-75 

4-16 Estimated Wastewater Supply Impacts in the Economic Impact Area.4-76 

4-17 Estimated Number of School-Aged Children Associated with In-Migrating 

Workforce Associated with Building at the PSEG Site.4-78 

4-18 Typical Noise and Emissions from Construction Equipment and Light Vehicles 

Used in Major Construction Projects.4-92 

4-19 Projected Total Nonfatal Occupational Illnesses and Injuries to Construction 

Force Using 2009 Rates for Various Groups.4-93 

4-20 Nonradiological Impacts of Transporting Construction Workers to and from the 

PSEG Site.4-96 

4-21 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts when Building a New Nuclear 

Power Plant at the PSEG Site.4-103 

4- 22 Summary of Impacts from Building a New Nuclear Power Plant at the PSEG 

Site.4-107 

5- 1 Maximum Predicted Salt Deposition Rate.5-18 

5-2 Ambient Noise Levels at HCGS and SGS in February 2009.5-20 

5-3 Impingement Rate for Important, Most Abundant, and Total Finfish Species and 

Blue Crab Impinged at SGS and HCGS.5-32 

5-4 Estimated Population Increase in the Economic Impact Area During Operations ....5-49 

5-5 Estimated Annual Purchases of Services and Materials During Operations.5-51 

5-6 Expected Distribution of Newly Created Workers in the Economic Impact Area 

During Operations.5-52 

5-7 Estimated Increase in Income Tax Revenue Associated with Workforce.5-53 

5-8 Estimated Sales Tax Revenue on Purchases During Operations.5-54 

5-9 Estimated Housing Impacts in the Economic Impact Area.5-57 

5-10 Estimated Water Supply Impacts in the Economic Impact Area.5-59 

5-11 Estimated Wastewater Supply Impacts in the Economic Impact Area.5-59 

5-12 Estimated Number of School-Aged Children Associated with In-Migrating 

Workforce Associated with Operations at the PSEG Site.5-61 

5-13 Annual Estimated Emissions from Cooling Towers, Auxiliary Boilers, Diesel 

Generators, and Gas Turbines at the PSEG Site.5-69 

5-14 Nonradiological Impacts of Transporting Operations Personnel to and from the 

PSEG Site.5-82 

5-15 Doses to the MEI for Liquid Effluent Releases from PSEG.5-86 

5-16 Doses to the MEI from the Gaseous Effluent Pathway for a New Nuclear Power 

Plant.5-87 


November 2015 


XIX 


NUREG-2168 

































Tables 


5-17 Comparison of MEI Dose Estimates from Liquid and Gaseous Effluents of the 

PSEG Site to Design Objectives.5-89 

5-18 Comparison of Doses for the PSEG Site to 40 CFR Part 190.5-90 

5-19 Biota Other Than Human Doses from Liquid and Gaseous Effluents.5-92 

5-20 Comparison of Biota Dose Rate from a New Nuclear Power Plant at the PSEG 

Site to IAEA Guidelines for Biota Protection.5-93 

5-21 Atmospheric Dispersion Factors for PSEG Site Design Basis Accident 

Calculations.5-103 

5-22 Design Basis Accident Doses for the US-APWR.5-103 

5-23 Design Basis Accident Doses for the U.S. EPR.5-104 

5-24 Design Basis Accident Doses for the API 000 Reactor.5-104 

5-25 Design Basis Accident Doses for ABWR.5-105 

5-26 Environmental Risks from a US-APWR Severe Accident at the PSEG Site.5-109 

5-27 Environmental Risks from an API000 Reactor Severe Accident at the PSEG 

Site.5-110 

5-28 Environmental Risks from a U.S. EPR Severe Accident at the PSEG Site.5-111 

5-29 Environmental Risks from an ABWR Severe Accident at the PSEG Site.5-112 

5-30 Comparison of Environmental Risks for a New Nuclear Power Plant at the 

PSEG Site with Risks for Current-Generation Reactors at Five Sites Evaluated 

in NUREG-1150.5-113 

5-31 Comparison of Environmental Risks from Severe Accidents for a US-APWR, 
an API 000, a U.S. EPR, and an ABWR at the PSEG Site with Risks for 

Current Plants from Operating License Renewal Reviews.5-113 

5-32 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Operation of a New 

Nuclear Power Plant at the PSEG Site.5-119 

5- 33 Summary of Operational Impacts for a New Nuclear Power Plant at the PSEG 

Site.5-124 

6- 1 Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data as Provided in S-3 of 10 CFR 

51.51(b).6-2 

6-2 Comparison of Annual Average Dose Received by an Individual from All 

Sources.6-13 

6-3 Number of Truck Shipments of Unirradiated Fuel for the Reference LWR and 
ABWR, API 000, U.S. EPR, and US-APWR Reactors at the PSEG Site, 

Normalized to the Reference LWR.6-21 

6-4 RADTRAN 5.6 Input Parameters for Reference LWR Fresh Fuel Shipments.6-22 

6-5 Radiological Impacts Under Normal Conditions of Transporting Unirradiated 

Fuel to the PSEG Site or Alternative Sites for a Single Reactor, Normalized to 

Reference LWR.6-24 

6-6 Nonradiological Impacts of Transporting Unirradiated Fuel to the PSEG 

Site and Alternative Sites with a Single Reactor, Normalized to Reference LWR ....6-28 
6-7 Transportation Route Information for Shipments from the PSEG Site and 

Alternative Sites to the Yucca Mountain Spent Fuel Disposal Facility.6-31 

6-8 RADTRAN 5.6 Normal Exposure Parameters.6-31 

6-9 Normal Radiation Doses to Transport Workers and the Public from Shipping 
Spent Fuel from the PSEG Site and Alternative Sites to the Proposed HLW 
Repository at Yucca Mountain, Normalized to Reference LWR.6-33 


NUREG-2168 


xx 


November 2015 



























Tables 


6-10 Radionuclide Inventories Used in Transportation Accident Risk Calculations for 

the US-APWR, U.S. EPR, ABWR, and AP1000 Reactors.6-36 

6-11 Annual Spent Fuel Transportation Accident Impacts for a Single Reactor at the 

PSEG Site and Alternative Sites, Normalized to Reference LWR Reactor.6-39 

6-12 Nonradiological Impacts of Transporting Spent Fuel from the PSEG Site and 
Alternative Sites to Yucca Mountain for a Single Reactor, Normalized to 

Reference LWR.6-40 

6-13 Summary of Radioactive Waste Shipments from the PSEG Site and Alternative 

Sites for a Single Reactor, Normalized to Reference LWR.6-42 

6- 14 Nonradiological Impacts of Radioactive Waste Shipments from the PSEG Site 

and Alternative Sites with a Single Reactor, Normalized to Reference LWR.6-42 

7- 1 Projects and Other Actions Considered in the Cumulative Impacts Analysis for 

the PSEG Site.7-2 

7-2 PSEG Estimates of Land-Use Impacts Associated with a Potential 

Offsite Transmission Line ROW.7-8 

7-3 Comparison of Annual Carbon Dioxide Emissions.7-38 

7- 4 Cumulative Impacts on Environmental Resources, Including the Impacts of a 

New Nuclear Power Plant at the PSEG Site.7-49 

8- 1 Historical and Projected Average Annual Growth Rate of New Jersey’s 

Population, 1995 to 2025.8-13 

8-2 Energy Use by Customer Class, New Jersey, 2013.8-13 

8-3 Electricity Demand in New Jersey for 2014-2023 .8-16 

8-4 Total Electricity Needed in New Jersey in 2023.8-17 

8-5 New Jersey Electricity Supply by Fuel.8-18 

8-6 New Jersey Capacity 2023 .8-20 

8- 7 Need for Power in New Jersey in 2023.8-20 

9- 1 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Power Generation at the 

PSEG Site.9-28 

9-2 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Natural-Gas-Fired Power Generation.9-35 

9-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts of a Combination of Power Sources.9-40 

9-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Constructing and Operating New 

Nuclear, Coal-Fired, and Natural-Gas-Fired Power-Generating Units and a 

Combination of Alternatives.9-43 

9-5 Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Emissions for Energy Alternatives.9-43 

9-6 Rankings of the Candidate Sites Based on Total Numerical Scores.9-51 

9-7 Weighted Numerical Scores for the Candidate Sites Based on Three 

Categories of Site Characteristics.9-51 

9-8 Projects and Other Actions Considered in the Cumulative Impacts Analysis for 

Site 4-1.9-58 

9-9 Delaware River Reduction in Flow and Assessed Impact Levels.9-68 

9-10 State and Federal Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species Recorded in 

the Site 4-1 Area.9-75 

9-11 Federally and State-Listed Aquatic Species in Hunterdon County, New Jersey, 

Near the Proposed Location of Water Intake and Discharge Structures.9-83 

9-12 Estimated Population Increase in the Alternative 4-1 Site Economic Impact 

Area.9-89 


November 2015 xxi NUREG-2168 






























Tables 


9-13 Housing Units at the Alternative 4-1 Site in Hunterdon and Bucks Counties.9-93 

9-14 Estimated Number of School-Aged Children Associated with the In-Migrating 

Workforce Associated with Building and Operations at Site 4-1.9-94 

9-15 Projects and Other Actions Considered in the Cumulative Impacts Analysis for 

Site 7-1.9-107 

9-16 State and Federal Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species Recorded in 

the Site 7-1 Area.9-122 

9-17 Federally and State-Listed Aquatic Species in the Delaware River Estuary Near 

Site 7-1.9-130 

9-18 Projects and Other Actions Considered in the Cumulative Impacts Analysis for 

Site 7-2.9-148 

9-19 State and Federal Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species Recorded in 

the Site 7-2 Area.9-162 

9-20 Federally and State-Listed Aquatic Species in the Delaware River Estuary Near 

Site 7-2.9-170 

9-21 Projects and Other Actions Considered in the Cumulative Impacts Analysis for 

Site 7-3.9-187 

9-22 State and Federal Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species Recorded in 

the Site 7-3 Area.9-202 

9-23 Federally and State-Listed Aquatic Species in the Delaware River Estuary Near 

Site 7-3.9-210 

9- 24 Comparison of Cumulative Impacts at the Proposed PSEG Site and Four 

Alternative Sites.9-229 

10- 1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts During Construction and 

Preconstruction.10-5 

10-2 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts from Operations.10-13 

10-3 Benefits of Building and Operating a New Nuclear Power Plant at the PSEG 

Site.10-24 

10-4 Internal and External Costs of Building and Operations at the PSEG Site.10-27 


NUREG-2168 


XXII 


November 2015 


















EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 


This environmental impact statement (EIS) presents the results of a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) environmental review of an application for an early site permit (ESP) at a 
proposed site in Salem County, New Jersey. In support of its proposed action of issuing a 
Department of the Army permit, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) participated in the 
preparation of the EIS as a cooperating agency and as a collaborative member of the review 
team, which consisted of the NRC staff, its contractor staff, and the USACE staff. 

BACKGROUND 

On May 25, 2010, PSEG Power, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear, LLC (PSEG) submitted an 
application to the NRC for an ESP at the PSEG Site located adjacent to the existing Hope 
Creek Generating Station (HCGS) and Salem Generating Station (SGS) in Lower Alloways 
Creek Township, Salem County, New Jersey. On June 5, 2015, PSEG submitted a fourth 
revised version of its application, which also included an Environmental Report (ER). 

Upon acceptance of PSEG's initial application, the NRC review team began the environmental 
review process as described in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 52 by 
publishing in the Federal Register on October 15, 2010, a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS and 
conduct scoping. As part of the environmental review, the review team did the following: 

• considered comments received during the 60-day scoping process that began on 
October 15, 2010, and conducted related public scoping meetings on November 4, 2010 in 
Carneys Point, New Jersey; 

• conducted site audits from April 17, 2012 through April 19, 2012 and from May 7, 2012 
through May 11, 2012; 

• conducted public meetings on the draft EIS on October 1, 2014 in Carneys Point, New 
Jersey and on October 23, 2014 in Middletown, Delaware; 

• considered comments received during the 105-day comment period for the draft EIS, which 
began on August 22, 2014; 

• reviewed PSEG’s ER and developed requests for additional information using guidance 
from NUREG-1555, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power 
Plants: Environmental Standard Review Plan ; and 

• consulted with Native American tribes and Federal and State agencies such as the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Advisory Council on 
Historic Preservation, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, the New 
Jersey State Historic Preservation Office, and the State of Delaware Office of Historical and 
Cultural Affairs. 


November 2015 


XXIII 


NUREG-2168 



Executive Summary 


PROPOSED ACTION 

The proposed actions related to the PSEG application are (1) the NRC issuance of an ESP for 
the PSEG Site and (2) the USACE issuance of a Department of the Army permit pursuant to 
Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act [CWA]) and Section 10 
of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, as amended, to perform certain dredge 
and fill activities on the site. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 

The purpose and need for the NRC proposed action—issuance of the ESP—is to provide for 
early resolution of site safety and environmental issues, which provides stability in the licensing 
process. Although no reactor will be built at the PSEG Site under this action (the ESP), to 
resolve environmental issues the staff assumed in this EIS that one or two reactors with the 
parameters specified in the plant parameter envelope (PPE) would be built and operated. Any 
new nuclear plant would provide for additional electrical generating capacity to meet the need 
for up to 2,200 MW(e) of baseload power in the State of New Jersey by 2021. 

The objective of the PSEG-requested USACE action is to obtain a Department of the Army 
individual permit to perform regulated dredge and fill activities that would affect wetlands and 
other waters of the United States. The basic purpose of obtaining the Department of the Army 
individual permit is for PSEG to conduct work associated with building a power plant to generate 
electricity for additional baseload capacity. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

A 60-day scoping period was held from October 15, 2010 through December 14, 2010, and on 
November 4, 2010, the NRC held public scoping meetings in Carneys Point, New Jersey during 
which interested parties were invited to provide comments on the applicant’s ER. The review 
team received many oral comments during the public meetings and 12 written statements, 

7 letters, and 1 e-mail during the scoping period on topics including surface-water hydrology, 
ecology, socioeconomics, historic and cultural resources, air quality, uranium fuel cycle, energy 
alternatives, and benefit-cost balance. 

In addition, during the 105-day comment period on the draft EIS, the review team held public 
meetings in Carneys Point, New Jersey on October 1, 2014 and in Middletown, Delaware on 
October 23, 2014. A combined total of approximately 75 people attended the public meetings in 
New Jersey, and approximately 140 people attended the public meetings in Delaware. 

A number of attendees at each meeting provided oral comments. 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

The PSEG Site is located on the southern part of Artificial Island adjacent to the existing HCGS 
and SGS Units 1 and 2, in Lower Alloways Creek Township, Salem County, New Jersey. The 
PSEG Site is on the eastern bank of the Delaware River about 18 mi south of Wilmington, 
Delaware, and 30 mi southwest of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The site is about 7 mi east of 
Middletown, Delaware; 7.5 mi southwest of Salem, New Jersey; and 9 mi south of Pennsville, 


NUREG-2168 


XXIV 


November 2015 





Executive Summary 


New Jersey. Figure ES-1 depicts the location of the PSEG Site in relation to nearby counties 
and cities within the context of the 50-mi region and the 6-mi vicinity. 



Rottstown 


Hightstown 


Trenton 


Philadelphia 


Camden'' 


/ W 1 1min gto 


Pennsville 


.Salem 


Aberdeen-* - - 
Havre'de Grace 
Bel Air* 


Middletown 


[Vineland 


Bridgeton 


Atlantic City. 


Baltimore 


Dover 


Wildwood^ 
Nortti Wildwood 

CapeKia^? 


LEGEND 


• Site Location 


Kilometers 
10 20 


_ j 6-mile (9.7 km) Vicinity Boundary 
^ 50-mile (80 km) Ring 


Mies 


Figure ES-1. PSEG Site Location and Vicinity 


Cooling water for any new nuclear units constructed at the PSEG Site would be obtained from 
the Delaware River. These units would use either mechanical or natural draft cooling towers to 
transfer waste heat to the atmosphere. A portion of the water obtained from the Delaware River 
would be returned to the environment via a discharge structure located in the Delaware River on 


November 2015 


xxv 


NUREG-2168 











































Executive Summary 


the western side of Artificial Island. The remaining portion of the water would be released to the 
atmosphere via evaporative cooling. 

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

When evaluating the environmental impacts associated with nuclear power plant construction 1 
and operations, the NRC’s authority is limited to construction activities related to radiological 
health and safety or common defense and security; that is, under 10 CFR 51.4, the 
NRC-authorized activities are related to safety-related structures, systems, or components and 
may include pile driving; subsurface preparation; placement of backfill, concrete, or permanent 
retaining walls within an excavation; installation of foundations; or in-place assembly, erection, 
fabrication, or testing. In this EIS, the NRC review team evaluates the potential environmental 
impacts of the construction and operation of a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site for the 
following resource areas; 

• land use, 

• air quality, 

• aquatic ecology, 

• terrestrial ecology, 

• surface water and groundwater, 

• waste (radiological and nonradiological), 

• human health (radiological and nonradiological), 

• socioeconomics and environmental justice, and 

• historic and cultural resources. 

This EIS also evaluates impacts associated with accidents, the fuel cycle, decommissioning, 
and transportation of radioactive materials. 

The impacts are designated as SMALL, MODERATE, 
or LARGE. The incremental impacts related to the 
construction and operations activities requiring the 
NRC authorization are described and characterized, 
as are the cumulative impacts resulting from the 
proposed action when the effects are added to, or 
interact with, other past, present, and reasonably 
foreseeable future effects on the same resources. 

Table ES-1 provides a summary of the cumulative 
impacts for the PSEG Site. The review team found 
that the cumulative environmental impacts would be 
SMALL for several resource categories, including 

demography, nonradiological health, radiological health, severe accidents, waste, fuel cycle, 
decommissioning, and transportation. 


SMALL: Environmental effects are 
not detectable or are so minor that 
they will neither destabilize nor 
noticeably alter any important attribute 
of the resource. 

MODERATE: Environmental effects 
are sufficient to alter noticeably, but 
not to destabilize, important attributes 
of the resource. 

LARGE: Environmental effects are 
clearly noticeable and are sufficient to 
destabilize important attributes of the 
resource. 


NUREG-2168 


XXVI 


November 2015 










Executive Summary 


Table ES-1. Cumulative Impacts on Environmental Resources, Including the 
Impacts of a New Nuclear Power Plant at the PSEG Site 


Resource Category 

Impact Level 

Land Use 

MODERATE 

Water-Related 

—Surface-Water Use 

MODERATE 

—Groundwater Use 

MODERATE 

—Surface-Water Quality 

MODERATE 

—Groundwater Quality 

MODERATE 

Ecology 

—Terrestrial Ecosystems 

MODERATE 

—Aquatic Ecosystems 

MODERATE to LARGE 

Socioeconomic 

—Physical Impacts 

SMALL to MODERATE 

—Demography 

SMALL 

—Taxes and Economic Impacts 

SMALL 

—Infrastructure and Community Services 

(beneficial for the region) 
to 

LARGE 

(beneficial for Salem County) 
SMALL to MODERATE 

Environmental Justice 

None (a) 

Historic and Cultural Resources 

MODERATE 

Air Quality 

SMALL to MODERATE 

Nonradiological Health 

SMALL 

Radiological Health 

SMALL 

Waste Management 

SMALL 

Severe Accidents 

SMALL 

Fuel Cycle, Transportation, and Decommissioning 

SMALL 

(a) The entry “None” for Environmental Justice does not mean there are no adverse impacts 

to minority or low-income populations from the proposed action. Rather, “None” means 

that, while there may be adverse impacts, those impacts do not affect minority or low- 

income populations in any disproportionate manner, relative to the general population. 


The cumulative socioeconomic impacts for physical impacts, infrastructure and community 
services, and air quality would be SMALL to MODERATE. The review team found that the 
cumulative environmental impacts on land use, surface-water use and quality, groundwater use 
and quality, terrestrial and wetland ecosystems, and historic and cultural resources would be 
MODERATE. However, the contributions of impacts from the NRC-authorized activities would 
be SMALL for all of the above-listed resource areas, except for land-use impacts; physical 
impacts, infrastructure and community services impacts, and historic and cultural resources. 
The new cooling towers would contribute to MODERATE cumulative physical impacts 
associated with aesthetics in certain locations, and traffic impacts during the peak periods for 
building a new nuclear plant would contribute to MODERATE cumulative impacts for 
infrastructure and community services. 


November 2015 


XXVII 


NUREG-2168 








Executive Summary 


Incremental impacts associated with the development of the causeway and the transmission 
lines would be the principal contributors to the MODERATE cumulative impacts for land use and 
for historic and cultural resources. Extensive past and present use of surface water from the 
Delaware River would be the primary driver for the MODERATE impacts for surface-water use 
and quality. Similarly, extensive past and present groundwater withdrawals from the local 
aquifer system would contribute to the MODERATE cumulative impacts to groundwater 
resources. 

Cumulative terrestrial and wetland ecosystem impacts would be MODERATE because of the 
loss of habitat from development of the causeway and the transmission line corridors. The 
significant history of the degradation of the Delaware Bay and Delaware River Estuary has had 
a noticeable and sometimes destabilizing effect on many aquatic species and communities. 
Building and operating any new nuclear plant at the PSEG Site, in conjunction with the 
operations of the existing HOGS and SGS nuclear units, would contribute to MODERATE to 
LARGE cumulative impacts to aquatic ecosystems. 

The cumulative impacts to taxes and the economy would be beneficial and would range from 
SMALL for the State of New Jersey and the region to LARGE for Salem County. 

There are few minority or low-income populations near the PSEG Site and the review team 
identified no pathways for disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority or low- 
income populations. 

The cumulative impacts on air quality would range from SMALL for criteria pollutants to 
MODERATE for greenhouse gases, based on both their emissions and associated 
concentrations in the atmosphere. 

NEED FOR POWER AND ALTERNATIVES 

The review team assessed the need for the power that would be produced by the proposed 
project and determined that if the plant were to be built on schedule (i.e., by 2021), there would 
be a demonstrated need for the capacity of the largest proposed reactor design in the PPE, 
such that the benefits of the proposed project (i.e., the power it would provide) would be 
realized. 

The review team also considered the environmental impacts associated with alternatives to 
issuing an ESP for the PSEG Site. These alternatives included a no-action alternative (i.e., not 
issuing the ESP), as well as alternative energy sources, siting locations, and system designs. 

The no-action alternative would result in the ESP not being granted or the USACE not issuing 
its permit. Upon such a denial, construction and operation of a new nuclear plant at the PSEG 
Site in accordance with the 10 CFR 52 (10 CFR 52-TN251) process referencing an approved 
ESP would not occur, and the predicted environmental impacts would not take place. If other 
generating sources were built to meet the need for power, either at another site or using a 
different energy source, the environmental impacts associated with those other sources would 
eventually occur. The review team also assessed the need for the power that would be 
produced by the proposed project and determined that if the plant were to be built on schedule 


NUREG-2168 


XXVIII 


November 2015 






Executive Summary 


(by 2021), there would be a demonstrated need for the capacity of the largest proposed reactor 
design in the PPE, such that the benefits of the proposed project (the power it would provide) 
would be realized. 

Based on the review team’s review of energy alternatives, the review team eliminated several 
energy sources (e.g., wind, solar, and biomass) from full consideration because those 
technologies are not currently capable of meeting the baseload electricity need. The review 
team concluded that, from an environmental perspective, none of the viable baseload 
alternatives (i.e., natural gas, coal, or a combination of alternatives) is clearly environmentally 
preferable to building new baseload nuclear power generating units at the PSEG Site. 

Table ES-2 provides a comparative summary of the environmental impacts of the viable energy 
alternatives. 

The review team compared the cumulative effects of the proposed action at the PSEG Site 
against those at the alternative sites. The following four alternatives sites were selected for 
review (see Figure ES-2): 

• Site 4-1 in Hunterdon County, New Jersey; 

• Site 7-1 in Salem County, New Jersey; 

• Site 7-2 in Salem County, New Jersey; and 

• Site 7-3 in Cumberland County, New Jersey. 

Table ES-3 provides a comparative summary of the cumulative impacts for the alternative sites. 
Although there are differences and distinctions between the cumulative environmental impacts 
of building and operating a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site or at one of the 
alternative sites, the review team concludes that these differences are not sufficient to 
determine that any of the alternative sites would be environmentally preferable to the PSEG Site 
for building and operating a new nuclear power plant. In such a case, the PSEG Site prevails 
because none of the alternative sites are clearly environmentally preferable. 

The review team considered various alternative systems designs, including alternative heat- 
dissipation systems and multiple alternative intake, discharge, and water-supply systems. 

The review team identified no alternatives for the PSEG Site that would be environmentally 
preferable to the systems designs used as the basis for analysis in this EIS. However, if at 
some time in the future PSEG requests authorization from the NRC (e.g., a combined license) 
to build and operate a new nuclear power plant, the review team will need to compare the 
specific heat dissipation design chosen to the other designs that were included in the PPE 
(Section 9.4.1 provides more detail on this matter). 


November 2015 


XXIX 


NUREG-2168 





Executive Summary 


<n 
0 
> 

ro 

c 

0 


3* 

03 

i_ 

d) 

c 

LU 

**- 

o 

t/) 

•*-> 

o 

CD 

a 

E 

"ro 

*-> 

c 

CD 

E 

c 

o 

’> 

c 

LU 


c 

o 

C/5 

'u 

CD 

a 

E 

o 

CJ 

cvi 

a) 

LU 

0) 

-Q 

CD 

h* 


>» 

O) 

a> 
c 
LU 


c 

o 

’*-> 

CD 

C 

Id 

E 

o 

o 


t/> 

CD 

o 

Id 

L. 

3 

+-> 

CD 

Z 


CD 

O 

o 


a> 

■*-* i_ 
^ 2 
O O 
LU 3 
<0 Z 
a. 


a) 

8 c/> 

3 CD 

o © 

CD ^ 

X 


LU 

I- 

< 

(X 

LU 

O 

O 


< < 
C/3 CO 


LU 

I- 

< 

01 

LU 

Q 

O 


CD 

‘a 

v q5 

c 

0 

_Q 


CD 

C/5 

i _ 

CD 

> 

■o 

CD 


co 


LU 

■- < 


CD 

C 

o 


LU 

h- 

< 

01 

LU 

Q 

O 


< < 


c n c/3 


co 


LU 

I— 

< 

01 

LU 

Q 

o 


< 

01 

LU 

Q 

o 


01 

LU 

O 

O 


LU LU 
h- I- 
< < 
01 01 
LU LU 
O Q 
O O 

o o 


< < 

CO CO 


CO 


LU 

h- 

< 

01 


CO 


LU 

h- 

< 

01 

LU 

Q 


CD 

O 

0 

LU 

1- 

< 

LU 

H 

< 

% 

CO 

01 

IX 

c 

k. 

0 

^ -D 

LU 

LU 

0 

o 

O 

a 


m '© 

O 

o 

LU 

o 2- c 



h- 

< 

"d l 

o 

o 

-4—' 

01 

< 

_l 


LU 



_J 

a 

CO 

< 

< 

O 

CO 

CO 


CD 

'cd 


CD 

CO 

i— 

CD 

> 

~o 

CD 


LU 

I- 

< 

01 

LU 

Q 


< 

_l 

< 

o 

s 

_J 

< 

E 2 H 

0 

c 



x_ 


^ i— 

o 

CO 

CO 

o 

CO 

LU < 

rn X 

Z 


01 

< 


LU 

Q 

O 


LU 

I- 

< 

x 

LU 

Q 

O 


< 

CO 


< < 


CO 


LU 

H— 

< 

01 

LU 

Q 

O 


CD 

^CJ 

V a5 

c 


CD 

CO 

L_ 

CD 

> 

■O 

CD 


< _q o LU 


CO CO 2 CO LU 

_J O 

_i 01 

< < 

^ - 1 

CO 


< 

x 

LU 

Q 

o 


CD 

c 

o 


CO 

E 

CD 


CO 

E 

CD 


0 

"CD 


CO 
CO 

o 

1- o CO 

CD LU O 


CO 


CD 

CO 

3 

TD 

C 

CD 


CD -= 


CD 
O 
CD 
t 

CO O 


TD 

C 

3 

O 


o 
CD LU 

b o 

co -x= 
CD CD 
t 3 
cr 
< 


CD 


co 

o 

E 

o 

c 

o 

o 

CD 

O 

CJ 

O 

CO 


CD 

CJ 

00 

3 


CD 

3 


CD O 


c 

CD 

E 

c 

o 

1— 

> 

c 

LU 


CO 


CO 


LU 


U 

c 

CD 

CJ 

i _ 

o 

"c/5 

X 


CD 

3 

0 


< 

CO 


< 

CO 


<c —j 
^ < 
o § I 


CO 


LU 

(- 

< 

X 

LU 

Q 

O 


LU 

h- 

< 

X 

LU 

o 

o 


< < 


2 co co 


CO 


< 

CO 


CD 

CD 

X 

c 

CD 

E 

3 

X 


c 

CD 

E 

CD 

CD 

CD 

c 

CD 


T5 

0 

N 


C 

o 

— CO 

!i 

?§ 

O o 

x 0 


0 c 
x: •- 
~ T3 

O © 

2 "o 

0 — 
(O o 

o £ 
x: ^ 

o c 

■D ^ 
© 0 
0 0 

g- o 
E 0 

CL 

E 

0 
> 


o 
o 

0 
L_ 

0 

<0 ~ 
0 _0 

3 

E 

3 
O 


0 
JZ 

05 0 
0 O 
c Z 
0 

0 -r- 

£ CD 

2 I 

«S o 

n 05 

2 CO 
co 

3 .£ 
O 
c 
o 
o 


0 


CO 

0 

0 

$ 

co 

0 


CO uo 
LLI "O 

2 0 


co 
0 
Q. 


0 


uq 
cvj 

CD XI 

c O 
c 


CJ "O 
0 0 
CO 


o 
0 0 


0 
0 0 


■'t 

I 

05 


0 

0 


0 
0 ~ 

X5 CO 

” o 

LU 

% W 
2 CL 

C j= 
0 — 
— 
0 0 

S 0 

O '-3 
2.1 
I 2 


0 


O 05 
0 


^ C 

0 o 
-o t 

0 o 

o Q- 
8. 2 
O Q. 

M 

1 c 

E ^ 
o .£ 

^ 0 
0 C 

c o 
o -i= 

X= 0 

2 3 

3 Q. 
CL O 
O CL 
CL 

0 


0 

E 

o 

a 

c 

I 

$ 

o 


c o 
o c 

I! 

2 0 

2 0 
o 

0 o 

CL C 

E o 
0 ^ 


0 

o 

0 


■o 

0 E 

c © 
c 0 

0 o 
0 2 

2 £ 

0 o 

H 0 


c 

0 

0 

E 

o 

c 

0 

0 

o 

T5 

0 

CJ 


^ -C c o 


CL 

E 

0 
0 

0 
> 

"O 
0 

0 
X5 

1 c 

2 0 

x: = 
2 cl 


rr - /— <15 V 


0 
c 
0 
E 
c 
o 

t _ 

> 
c 
LU 

c/5 O 
0 . 

> '0 

11 

0 = 

% 

05 0 <D c 
0 0 2 CC 
c x: CD CD 

0 I— DC E 


2 Q. 

is 

. 0 

© 5 

2 CD 

0 0 
c x; 
0 

0 o 

E 0 

r 0 -2 
C ro 

-§ CD 


NUREG-2168 


xxx 


November 2015 









Executive Summary 



Figure ES-2. Map Showing the Locations of Alternative Sites (note that the PSEG Site is 
also identified as Site 7-4) 


November 2015 


XXXI 


NUREG-2168 






















Table ES-3. Comparison of Environmental Impacts at Alternative Sites 


Executive Summary 


& 

CO 

0 

4-> 

CO 

0 

> 

■*-' 

to 

c 

l_ 

0 

< 



LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 

00 

1 

h- 

H 

h- 

h- 

1— 

< 

< 

< 

< 

< 


cr 

X 

Od 

cr 

cr 

0 

LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 

UJ 

■*-> 

0 

a 

Q 

a 

Q 

CO 

0 

O 

O 

0 

0 




2 





UJ 

LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 


CD 

CO 


LU 


LU 


CNI 

1 

1 - 

1 - 

h- 

1 - 

h- 

LU 

4- 

(D 

a5 


1 - 


1 - 


< 

< 

< 

< 

< 

vLd 

c 

> 

O 

< 


< 

_i 

0) 

cr 

LU 

cr 

LU 

cr 

LU 

cr 

LU 

cr 

UJ 

_ O 
2 cr 


a) 

c 

cr 

UJ 

_ 1 

< 

2 fu 

_j 

< 


a 

a 

Q 

Q 

0 

< 

1 1 1 

LU 

0 

•7 

0 


Q 


<O 

0 

O 

0 

O 

0 

_i 

LU 

O 

Z- 

0 

CO 

O 

CO 








V-/ 

cr 

cr 







h- 

0> 

-4-> 

(O 


Tj- 

0) 

CO 


o 

o 

k_ 

3 

o 
</) 
0) 
I X 


LU 

„ o 
2 cr 
< 


TO 

o 

c 

CD 

.Q 

LU 

O 

cr 

< 


TO 


0 

CO 

l_ 

0 

> 

■o 

O 3. 
LU 

<D 

cr 

< 


0) 

c 

o 


LU 

I- 

< 

cr 

LU 

Q 

o 


LU 


< 

2 m 

Q 

_ 1 

< 

_ 1 

< 




CO 

1 J 

O 

CO 

CO 


CD 


LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 

h- 

1- 

1- 

h- 

h- 

< 

< 

< 

< 

< 

cr 

cr 

cr 

cr 

cr 

UJ 

LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 

a 

Q 

0 

0 

Q 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 







0 

"co 


0 

CO 

Z> 

TD 

c 

CO 


CO — 


0 
o 
0 
t; 

co O 


tj 

c 

3 

o 


LU 

„ O 
2 cr 
< 


LU 

LU 


LU 

LU 

I- 

1- 


h- 

I- 

< 

< 


< 

< 

cr 

cr 

_ 1 

cr 

cr 

LU 

LU 


LU 

LU 

0 

0 


Q 

Q 

0 

O 

CO 

0 

0 







TO 


LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 

0 


1- 

h- 

1- 

h- 

1- 

+-> 

N 

1 

< 

< 

< 

< 

< 

CO 

h- 

cr 

cr 

cr 

cr 

cr 

0 

UJ 

CO 

0) 

LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 

-4-» 

a 

0 

Q 

0 

Q 

CO 

0 

O 

0 

O 

0 

a. 


2 




2 


to 

0 £ 

II 

8 £ 
i- O y) 

0 LU O 


O 
0 LU 

-b o 
co -3; 
0 0 
L 3 
cr 
< 


0 

v 0 

c 

0 

.o 

LU 

o 

cr 

< 


0 

o 


0 

CO 

0 

> 

TO 

O 3 
UU 

o 

cr 

< 


0 

CO 


0 5 

c -O 


LU 

O 
2 X 
< 


0 

.Q 

LU 

O 

cr 

< 


0 

u 

'0 

c 

0 

.Q 

LU 

o 

cr 

< 


ro, 

LU 

O 

cr 

< 


0 

CO 

0 

> 

TO 

0 , 

o Uj 
— h- 
< 
cr 

LU 

Q 

o 


0 


co 

o 


o 

c 

o 

o 

0 

o 

o 

o 

CO 


0 

c 

0 

o 

Ql 


0 

c 

o 


0 

c 

o 


LU 

I- 

< 

cr 

LU 

Q 

o 


0 

0 

w 

3 


0 

c 

0 

E 

c 

o 


LU 


LU 


LU 

O 

cr 

< 


LU 

I— 

< 

cr 

LU 

Q 

o 


LU 


< 

CO 


LU 

_l 

_J 

< O ^ 

^ 2 LU 
^ Q 

_l 

_J 

< 

< 



CO § 

CO 

CO 


_J 

< 

2 m 

Q 

_ 1 

< 

_1 

< 




CO 

l—J 

O 

CO 

CO 


_J 

< 

0 ^ 
2 LU 

Q 

_l 

< 

< 

c_ C 

0 0 




2 2 

CO 

0 

CO 

CO 

W 0 

c c 


0 

3 

"3 

o 

TO 

c 

0 

o 

o 

0 

X 


0 

3 

O 


0 

0 

X 

c 

0 

E 

3 

x 


c 

0 

E 

0 

05 

0 

c 

0 


0 

"co 

0 


0 

0 


JZ 

O V Jz 

s 1 

TO ■§ -Q 

0 O co 
m o > 
o o ro 

1=1 Cl 


0 

JZ 

E 

o 

co 

c 

o 


>> M_ 

c o 
ro a, 
c o 
— c 
co 0 
c 0 
O 0 


_0 
0 0 0 
3 Q.^ 
0.0 
O Cl TO 

0 £ 
2 E E 
E o E 

O CD 0 
cd c 2 
C T 0 

$ -o 

O 0 
0 


.2 1 
^ o 

o >, 

>0c 
c o 
o c 

■i E 


0 


^ co 

CNJ CO 

X a> 
^ c 
c o 
•2--0 
o 0 
0 CO 

0 0 
0 0 
0 ^ 

^co 
52 w 

W Q) 
0 JZ 
JZ ■— 

*■’ c 

C — 
— 'T 
Tt CM 
1 1 

1^ COO 

0 0 
jQ JD 
0 0 

I- I- 

E E 
o o 


co 
0 
3 = 
0 

CD 

0 O 
CL C 

E o 

- TO 
0 <2 


a 

0 

CL 

E 


E 

0 

0 


0 

> 

0 

0 

x: 

0 

£ 

0 

c 

0 

0 

E 


° 0 
c- 0 
0 O 
0 2 

0 0" 

0 O 
JZ 0 
CL 

S.i 

0 0 
E co 

o ^ 

c TO 
0 0 

O 0 
-8 

8 I 

1 8? 
“O 0 

0 £ 
c 0 

11 
o H_r 
U 0 

> JZ 

c 

LU 0 
1— ^ 
2 g 
'© E 

o 2 
? o 


.2 .2 

0 0 
c c 

£ E 

L. L. 

2 2 
0 0 

TO TO 

O O 
0 0 
CL CL 

E E 

0 0 
> > >>: 

2 2 E u 0 * 

3 3 0 0 c 

E E 0 2 c 

3 3 SZ 0 

UOhQC E 


0 J3 O 


0 ^ 

c 2 
0 0 

II 

c 2 

0 CL 
0 
2 

X TO 

^ 0 

2 0 
C Cfc 
.2 0 
CO 0 
JD 

C TO 

.2 3 
2 8 

ij 

_8" ro 

0 3 

0 o 

0 CL 
00 0 

0 E 


0 

> 

2 

0 


0 


NUREG-2168 


XXXII 


November 2015 









Executive Summary 


BENEFITS AND COSTS 

The review team compiled and compared the pertinent analytical conclusions reached in this 
EIS. All of the expected impacts from building and operating a new nuclear power plant at the 
PSEG Site were gathered and aggregated into two final categories: (1) the expected 
environmental costs and (2) the expected benefits to be derived from approval of the proposed 
action. Although the analysis in Section 10.6 of this EIS is conceptually similar to a purely 
economic benefit-cost analysis, which determines the net present dollar value of a given project, 
the intent of that section is to identify potential societal benefits of the proposed activities and 
compare them to the potential internal (i.e., private) and external (i.e., societal) costs of the 
proposed activities. In general, the purpose is to inform the ESP process by gathering and 
reviewing information that demonstrates the likelihood that the benefits of the proposed 
activities outweigh the aggregate costs. 

On the basis of the assessments in this EIS, the building and operation of a new nuclear power 
plant at the PSEG Site, with mitigation measures identified by the review team, would accrue 
benefits (e.g., the electricity produced) that most likely would outweigh the economic, 
environmental, and social costs. For the NRC-proposed action (i.e., the issuance of the ESP), 
the accrued future benefits would also outweigh the costs of preconstruction, construction, and 
operation of a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site. 

RECOMMENDATION 

The NRC staffs recommendation to the Commission related to the environmental aspects of the 
proposed action is that the ESP should be issued as proposed. 

This recommendation is based on the following: 

• the application, including the ER and its revisions, submitted by PSEG; 

• consultation with Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; 

• consideration of public comments received during scoping and the public comment period 
following the publication of the draft EIS; and 

• the review team’s independent review and assessment as detailed in this EIS. 

In making its recommendation, the NRC staff determined that none of the alternative sites is 
environmentally preferable (and therefore, also not obviously superior) to the PSEG Site. The 
NRC staff also determined that none of the energy or cooling-system alternatives assessed is 
environmentally preferable to the proposed action. 

The NRC staffs determination is independent of the USACE’s determination of whether the 
PSEG Site is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative pursuant to CWA 
Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. The USACE will conclude its analysis of both offsite and onsite 
alternatives in its Record of Decision. 


November 2015 


XXXIII 


NUREG-2168 






























































































ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 


°c 

°F 

M9 

pm 

pS/cm 

x/Q 

7Q10 


ABWR 

ac 

ac-ft 

acfm 

ACHP 

ACS 

ACW 

AD 

ADAMS 

AE 

ALARA 

A.M.E. 

ANL 

ANS 

AP1000 

APE 

AQCR 

ARRA 

ASCE/SEI 

ASMFC 

ASSRT 

ATWS 

BA 

BACT 

bbl 

BBS 

BC 

BEA 

BEIR 


degree(s) Celsius 
degree(s) Fahrenheit 
microgram(s) 
micrometer(s) 

microsievert(s) per centimeter 
atmospheric dispersion factor(s) 

7-day, 10-year low flow (i.e., the lowest flow for 7 consecutive days, 
expected to occur once per decade) 

Advanced Boiling Water Reactor 

acre(s) 

acre-feet 

actual cubic feet per minute 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

American Community Survey 

Alloway Creek Watershed Wetland Restoration 

Anno Domini 

Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 

Atlantic City Electric 

as low as reasonably achievable 

African Methodist Episcopal 

Argonne National Laboratory 

American Nuclear Society 

Advanced Passive 1000 (pressurized water) reactor 

area of potential effect 

Air Quality Control Region 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural Engineering Institute 
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 
Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team 
anticipated transient without scram 

biological assessment 

Best Available Control Technology 

barrel(s) 

North American Breeding Bird Survey 
Before Christ 

Bureau of Economic Analysis 
Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation 


November 2015 


xxxv 


NUREG-2168 




Acronyms and Abbreviations 


BGEPA 

BGS 

BLS 

BMP 

BNL 

BRAC 

BTS 

Btu 

BUD 

BWA 

BWR 

C&D 

CAA 

CAES 

CAFRA 

CAIR 

CCR 

CCS 

CCW 

CDC 

CDF 

CEDE 

CEQ 

CFR 

cfs 

CPU 

Ci 

cm 

CMP 

CO 

C0 2 

CO2Q 

COL 

COLA 

CORMIX 

CP 

CR 

CSAPR 

CSP 

CWA 


Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 
basic generation service 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (U.S. Department of Labor) 

best management practice 

Brookhaven National Laboratory 

Base Realignment and Closure 

Bureau of Technical Services 

British thermal unit(s) 

beneficial use determination 

Bureau of Water Allocation 

boiling water reactor 

Chesapeake and Delaware 
Clean Air Act 

compressed air energy storage 

Coastal Area Facility Review Act 

Clean Air Interstate Rule 

coal combustion residual 

carbon capture and sequestration 

component cooling water 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Confined Disposal Facility 

committed effective dose equivalent 

Council on Environmental Quality 

Code of Federal Regulations 

cubic feet per second 

methane 

curie(s) 

centimeter(s) 

Coastal Management Program 
carbon monoxide 
carbon dioxide 
CO 2 equivalent 

combined construction permit and operating license or combined license 

combined license application 

Cornell Mixing Zone Expert System 

construction permit 

County Route 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 
concentrating solar power 

Clean Water Act (aka Federal Water Pollution Control Act) 


NUREG-2168 


xxxvi 


November 2015 



Acronyms and Abbreviations 


CWIS 

cws 

CZM 

CZMA 

circulating water intake structure 
circulating water system 
coastal zone management 

Coastal Zone Management Act 

d 

D/Q 

DA 

DAM 

dB 

dBA 

DBA 

DBF 

DC 

DBT 

DCD 

DCR 

DDT 

DE 

DEIS 

DFW 

DNL 

DNREC 

day 

deposition factor(s) 

Department of the Army 

Day-Ahead Market 
decibel(s) 

decibel(s) on the A-weighted scale 
design basis accident 
design basis flood 
direct current 
dry-bulb temperature 

Design Certification/Control Document 

Deed of Conservation Restriction 

Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane 

Delaware 

draft environmental impact statement 

Division of Fish & Wildlife 
day-night average sound levels 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental 

Control 

DOE 

DOT 

DPCC 

DPS 

DR 

DRBC 

DRN 

DSM 

DWDS 

DWS 

U.S. Department of Energy 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Discharge Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasure 
distinct population segment 
demand response 

Delaware River Basin Commission 

Delaware Riverkeeper Network 
demand-side management 
demineralized water distribution system 
drinking water standard 

EA 

EAB 

ECOS 

EDO 

EDG 

EE 

environmental assessment 
exclusion area boundary 

Environmental Conservation Online System (FWS) 
electric delivery company 
emergency diesel generator 
energy efficiency 

November 2015 

xxxvii NUREG-2168 


Acronyms and Abbreviations 


EEP 

EFH 

EIA 

EIF 

EIS 

ELF 

EMAAC 

EMF 

EMS 

EO 

EPA 

EPR 

ER 

ESA 

ESF 

ESMP 

ESP 

ESPA 

ESRP 

ESWS 

Estuary Enhancement Program 
essential fish habitat 

Energy Information Administration 
equivalent impact factor 
environmental impact statement 
extremely low frequency 

Eastern Mid-Atlantic Area Council 
electromagnetic field 
emergency medical services 

Executive Order 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Evolutionary Power Reactor 

Environmental Report 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 
engineered safety feature 

Environmental Surveillance and Monitoring Program 

early site permit 

early site permit application 

Environmental Standard Review Plan (NUREG-1555) 
essential service water system 

FEMA 

FERC 

FHWA 

FMP 

FP 

fpm 

fps 

FPS 

FR 

FRN 

FSAR 

ft 

ft 2 

ft 3 

FWCA 

FWS 

U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Federal Highway Administration 

fishery management plan 

fission product 

feet per minute 

feet per second 

fire protection system 

Federal Register 

Federal Register Notice 

Final Safety Analysis Report 

foot or feet 
square foot or feet 

cubic foot or feet 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

g 

gal 

GBq 

gram(s) 

gallon(s) 

gigabecquerel 

NUREG-2168 

xxxviii November 2015 



Acronyms and Abbreviations 


GCRP 

GDP 

GEIS 

U.S. Global Change Research Program 
gross domestic product 

Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear 

Plants (NUREG-1437) 

GEIS-DECOM 

GHG 

GI-LLI 

GIS 

GMP 

9Pd 

gpm 

GSR 

GWh 

GWPP 

Gy 

GEIS-Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities (NUREG-0586) 
greenhouse gas 

gastrointestinal lining of lower intestine 
geographic information system 
gross metropolitan product 
gallon(s) per day 
gallon(s) per minute 
geologic survey report 
gigawatt-hour(s) 
groundwater protection program 

Gray(s) 

H1H 

H2H 

ha 

HAP 

HAPC 

HCGS 

HDA 

HLW 

HPO 

hr 

Hz 

high-first-high 

high-second-high 

hectare(s) 

hazardous air pollutant 

Habitat Area of Particular Concern 

Hope Creek Generating Station 
heat dissipation area 
high-level waste 
historic preservation office 
hour(s) 

hertz 

1 

IAEA 

ICRP 

IGCC 

U.S. Interstate (highway) 

International Atomic Energy Agency 

International Commission on Radiological Protection 
integrated gasification combined cycle 

in. 

in. Hg 

IPCC 

IRM 

ISFSI 

inch(es) 

inch(es) of mercury 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

installed reserve margin 

independent spent fuel storage installation 

JCPL 

Jersey Central Power & Light 

kg 

kilogram(s) 

November 2015 

xxxix NUREG-2168 



Acronyms and Abbreviations 


kHz 

km 

km/hr 

km 2 

kV 

kW(e) 

kWh 

kilohertz 

kilometer(s) 
kilometer(s) per hour 
square kilometer(s) 
kilovolt(s) 

kilowatt(s) (electrical) 
kilowatt-hour(s) 

L 

LAER 

lb 

Ldn 

LEDPA 

Leq 

LFG 

LLC 

LLW 

LMDCT 

LMP 

LOCA 

LOI 

LOLE 

LOS 

LPZ 

LST 

LULC 

LWA 

LWCF 

LWR 

liter(s) 

lowest achievable emission rate 
pound(s) 

day-night average sound level 

least environmentally damaging practicable alternative 
equivalent continuous sound level 
landfill gas 

Limited Liability Company 
low-level waste 

linear mechanical draft cooling tower 
locational marginal price 
loss of coolant accident 

letter of interpretation 
loss of load expectation 

level of service 
low population zone 
local standard time 

land use and land cover 

Limited Work Authorization 

Land and Water Conservation Fund 
light water reactor 

m 

m/s 

m 2 

m 3 

m 3 /s 

MACCS2 

MAPP 

MCCI 

MCWB 

MDCT 

MEI 

meter(s) 

meter(s) per second 
square meter(s) 
cubic meter(s) 
cubic meter(s) per second 

Melcor Accident Consequence Code System Version 1.12 

Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway 

molten corium-to-concrete interaction 

mean coincident wet-bulb temperature 
mechanical draft cooling tower 
maximally exposed individual 

NUREG-2168 

xl November 2015 



Acronyms and Abbreviations 


MERP 

Marsh Ecology Research Program 

mg 

Mgd 

mGy 

mi 

mi 2 

milligram(s) 

million gallon(s) per day 

milligray(s) 

mile(s) 

square mile(s) 

min 

ml_ 

MLW 

MM 

minute(s) 
milliliter(s) 
mean low water 

million 

mm 

millimeter(s) 

mo 

MOU 

MOX 

mph 

mrad 

month(s) 

Memorandum of Understanding 
mixed oxides 
mile(s) per hour 
millirad(s) 

mrem 

MSA 

MSA 

MSDS 

MSL 

mSv 

MSW 

MT 

MTU 

MUA 

MW 

MW(e) 

MW(t) 

MWd 

MWd/MTU 

MWh 

millirem(s) 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

Metropolitan Statistical Area 
material safety data sheets 
mean sea level 
millisievert(s) 
municipal solid waste 
metric ton(nes) 
metric ton(nes) uranium 
municipal utilities authority 
megawatt(s) 
megawatt(s) (electrical) 
megawatt(s) (thermal) 
megawatt-day(s) 

megawatt-day(s) per metric ton of uranium 
megawatt-hour(s) 

NA 

N 2 0 

NAAQS 

NAVD 

not applicable 

nitrous oxide 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

North American Vertical Datum (sea level reference point used in 
surveying) 

NAVD88 

NCA 

NCI 

North American Vertical Datum of 1988 

Noise Control Act 

National Cancer Institute 


November 2015 


xli 


NUREG-2168 



Acronyms and Abbreviations 


NCP 

NCRP 

NDCT 

NEFMC 

NEI 

NEPA 

NEPT 

NERC 

NESC 

NGCC 

NGVD29 

NHD 

NHL 

NHPA 

NIEHS 

NJ 

NJAC 

NJBNE 

NJBPU 

NJDEP 

NJDOT 

NJEMP 

NJGS 

NJLWD 

NJPDES 

NJSA 

NJSM 

NMFS 

N0 2 

NOAA 

NO x 

NPDES 

NPS 

NRC 

NRCS 

NREL 

NRHP 

NSF 

NSLP 

NSPS 

NSR 


non-coincident peak 

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements 

natural draft cooling tower 

New England Fishery Management Council 

Nuclear Electric Institute 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended 

Neptune Regional Transmission System 

North American Electric Reliability Corporation 

National Electric Safety Code 

natural gas combined cycle 

National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 

National Hydrology Dataset 

National Historic Landmark 

National Historic Preservation Act 

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 

New Jersey 

New Jersey Administrative Code 

New Jersey Bureau of Nuclear Engineering 

New Jersey Board of Public Utilities 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

New Jersey Department of Transportation 

New Jersey Energy Master Plan 

New Jersey Geological Survey 

New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development 

New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

New Jersey Statutes Annotated 

New Jersey State Museum 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

nitrogen dioxide 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
oxides of nitrogen 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

National Park Service 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Natural Resource Conservation Service 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

National Register of Historic Places 

National Science Foundation 

Northeast Supply Link Project 

new source performance standard 

New Source Review 


NUREG-2168 


xlii 


November 2015 


Acronyms and Abbreviations 


NTU 

nephelometric turbidity unit(s) 

NUREG 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission technical document 

NWI 

National Wetland Inventory 

NWR 

National Wildlife Refuge 

NWS 

National Weather Service 

NY-NJ-CT 

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island (nonattainment area) 

NYB 

New York Bight 

0 3 

ozone 

ODCM 

Offsite Dose Calculation Manual 

ODST 

Office of Dredging and Sediment Technology 

OL 

operating license 

OPA 

Office of Planning Advocacy 

OPSI 

Organization of PJM States, Inc. 

ORNL 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

OSHA 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

PA-NJ-DE 

Philadelphia-Wilmington (nonattainment area) 

PA-NJ-MD-DE 

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City (nonattainment area) 

PAM 

primary amebic meningoencephalitis 

para. 

paragraph 

Pb 

lead 

PCB 

polychlorinated biphenyl 

PECO 

PECO Energy 

pH 

measure of acidity or basicity in solution 

PHI 

Pepco Holdings Inc. 

PIR 

public interest review 

PIRF 

public interest review factor 

PJM 

PJM Interconnection, LLC 

PM 

particulate matter 

PM 10 

particulate matter with a mean aerodynamic diameter of 10 pm or less 

PM 2.5 

particulate matter with a mean aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 pm or less 

PNNL 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

ppb 

part(s) per billion 

PPE 

plant parameter envelope 

ppm 

part(s) per million 

ppt 

part(s) per thousand 

PRA 

probabilistic risk assessment 

PRM 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy (aquifer) 

PSD 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

PSE&G 

Public Service Electric and Gas Company 


November 2015 


xliii 


NUREG-2168 


Acronyms and Abbreviations 


PSEG 

psi 

psu 

PSWS 

PTE 

PV 

PWR 


PSEG Power, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear, LLC 

pound(s) per square inch 

practical salinity unit 

potable and sanitary water system 

potential to emit 

photovoltaic 

pressurized water reactor 


rad 

RAI 

RCRA 

REC 

RECO 

rem 

REMP 

RERR 

RFC 

RFI 

RG 

RGPP 

RKM 

RM 

ROD 

ROI 

ROW 

RPM 

RPS 

RSA 

RSICC 

RTEP 

RTM 

RTO 

RTP 

RV 

RWS 

Ryr 


radiation absorbed dose 
Request for Additional Information 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended 
renewable energy credit(s) 

Rockland Electric Company 

Roentgen equivalent man (a unit of radiation dose) 
radiological environmental monitoring program 
Radioactive Effluent Release Report 
ReliabilityF/rsf Corporation 
request for information 
Regulatory Guide 

Radiological Groundwater Protection Program 

River Kilometer 

River Mile 

Record of Decision 

region of interest 

right-of-way 

reliability pricing model 

Renewable Portfolio Standard 

relevant service area 

Radiation Safety Information Computational Center 
Regional Transmission Expansion Plan 
real-time market 

regional transmission organization 
rated thermal power 
recreational vehicle 
raw water service 
reactor-year(s) 


s 

SA 

SACTI 

SAFSTOR 


second(s) 

sanitation authority or sewerage authority 

Seasonal and Annual Cooling Tower Impact (prediction code) 

Safe Storage 


NUREG-2168 


xliv 


November 2015 



Acronyms and Abbreviations 


SAMA 

SAV 

SBO 

scf 

SCR 

SE 

SECA 

SEIA 

SEIS 

SELcum 

SER 

SESC Act 

SGS 

SGTR 

SHPO 

SIL 

SMC 

SMR 

S0 2 

so x 

SOARCA 

SPCC 

SPCCP 

SPLpeak 

SPLrms 

SRERP 

SSAR 

SSC 

STP 

Sv 

SWIS 

SWPPP 

SWS 

severe accident mitigation alternative 

submerged aquatic vegetation 

station blackout (in reference to a diesel generator) 

standard cubic feet 

selective catalytic reduction 

southeast 

Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance 
Socioeconomic Impact Area 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 
cumulative sound exposure level 
safety evaluation report 

Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act 

Salem Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 
steam generator tube rupture 

State Historic Preservation Office 
significant impact level 

South Macro-Corridor 

small modular reactor 

sulfur dioxide 

oxides of sulfur 

State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analysis 

spill prevention, control, and countermeasures 

spill prevention, control, and countermeasure plan 

sound pressure level (peak) 

sound pressure level (root mean square) 

Susquehanna-Roseland Electric Reliability Project 

Site Safety Analysis Report 

structure, system, or component 

sewage treatment plant 

sieved 

service water intake system 
stormwater pollution prevention plan 
service water system 

T 

T&E 

TDS 

TEDE 

THPO 

TIA 

TLD 

ton(s) 

threatened and endangered 
total dissolved solids 

total effective dose equivalent 

Tribal Historic Preservation Office 
traffic impact analysis 
thermoluminescent dosimeter 


November 2015 


xlv 


NUREG-2168 


Acronyms and Abbreviations 


TPS 

tpy 

TRAGIS 

third party supplier 
ton(s) per year 

Transportation Routing Analysis Geographic Information System 

235 (J 

UA 

UHS 

UMTRI 

U.S. 

U.S. EPR 

US-APWR 

USACE 

use 

USCB 

USCG 

USDA 

USFS 

USGS 

uranium-235 
utilities authority 
ultimate heat sink 

University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute 

United States 

U.S. Evolutionary Power Reactor 

U.S. Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

United States Code 

U.S. Census Bureau 

U.S. Coast Guard 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

U.S. Forest Service 

U.S. Geological Survey 

V 

voc 

volt 

volatile organic compound 

WBT 

WHO 

WMA 

WMC 

WRA 

wet-bulb temperature 

World Health Organization 

Wildlife Management Area 

West Macro-Corridor 

Water Resources Association of Delaware River Basin 

yd 

yd 3 

yr 

yr 1 

yard(s) 
cubic yard(s) 
year(s) 
per year 


NUREG-2168 

xlvi November 2015 


1.0 INTRODUCTION 


On May 25, 2010, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received an application 
pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 52 (TN251), from PSEG 
Power, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear, LLC (PSEG), for an early site permit (ESP) for a site located 
adjacent to the existing Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) and Salem Generating Station 
(SGS) in Lower Alloways Creek Township, Salem County, New Jersey. On June 23, 2015, , 
PSEG submitted a fourth revised version of its application, including the Environmental Report 
(ER), so unless stated otherwise, any reference in this environmental impact statement (EIS) to 
the ER refers to Revision 4 (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Under the NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 
52 (TN251) and in accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR Part 51 (TN250), which 
are the NRC regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) 

(42 USC 4321 et seq. -TN661), the NRC is required to prepare an EIS as part of its review of an 
ESP application. 

Following the issuance of the draft EIS, PSEG submitted a Federal and State application to the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the New Jersey Department of Environmental 
Protection (NJDEP) for the Alteration of Any Floodplains, Waterways, or Tidal or Nontidal 
Wetlands in New Jersey (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

The proposed actions related to the PSEG application are (1) the NRC issuance of an ESP for 
the PSEG Site and (2) the USACE permit action on a Department of the Army (DA) permit 
application pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act 
[CWA]; 33 USC 1251 et seq. [TN662]) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation 
Act of 1899 (RHAA; 33 USC 403 et seq. [TN660]). The USACE is a cooperating agency with 
the NRC to verify that the information presented in this EIS is adequate to fulfill the 
requirements of the USACE regulations found at 33 CFR Part 320 et seq. (TN424) and the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) "Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines for Specification of 
Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material” (40 CFR Part 230-TN427), hereafter the 404(b)(1) 
Guidelines. The USACE has the authority to issue permits for proposed work or structures in 
and under navigable waters and the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the 
United States. The USACE regulates activities that would temporarily or permanently impact 
wetlands and water bodies involved in this project. 

1.1 Background 

An ESP is a Commission approval of a site for one or more nuclear power facilities. Issuance of 
an ESP is a process that is separate from the issuance of a construction permit (CP), an 
operating license (OL), or a combined construction permit and operating license (combined 
license or COL) for such a facility. The ESP application and review process makes it possible 
to evaluate and resolve safety and environmental issues related to siting before the applicant 
makes a large commitment of resources. If an ESP is approved, the applicant can “bank” the site 
for up to 20 years for future reactor siting. An ESP does not, however, authorize construction and 
operation of a nuclear power plant. To construct and operate a nuclear power plant, an ESP 
holder must obtain a CP and an OL, or a COL, which are separate major Federal actions that 
require their own environmental reviews in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 (TN250). 


November 2015 


1-1 


NUREG-2168 







Introduction 


As part of its evaluation of the environmental aspects of the action proposed in an ESP 
application, the NRC prepares an EIS in accordance with 10 CFR 52.18 (TN251) and 
10 CFR Part 51 (TN250). Because site suitability encompasses construction and operational 
parameters, the EIS addresses impacts of both construction and operation of reactors and 
associated facilities. In a review separate from the EIS process, the NRC analyzes the safety 
characteristics of the proposed site and emergency planning information. These latter two 
analyses are documented in a separate safety evaluation report (SER) (NRC 2015-TN4369) 
that presents, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 52 (TN251), the conclusions reached by the 
NRC regarding the following issues: 

• whether there is reasonable assurance that a reactor or reactors, having characteristics that 
fall within the parameters for the site, can be constructed and operated without undue risk to 
the health and safety of the public; 

• whether, if complete and integrated emergency plans are submitted (as PSEG did), the 
emergency plans meet the applicable requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 (TN249) and its 
appendices such that there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can 
and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency; and 

• whether site characteristics are such that adequate security plans and measures can be 
developed. 

1.1.1 Plant Parameter Envelope 

The applicant for an ESP need not provide a detailed design of a reactor or reactors and the 
associated facilities, but should provide sufficient bounding parameters and characteristics of 
the reactor or reactors and the associated facilities so that an assessment of site suitability can 
be made. Consequently, the ESP application may refer to a plant parameter envelope (PPE) as 
a surrogate for a nuclear power plant and its associated facilities. 

A PPE is a set of values of plant design parameters that an ESP applicant expects will bound 
the design characteristics of the reactor or reactors that might be constructed at a given site. 

The PPE values are a bounding surrogate for actual reactor design information. Analysis of 
environmental impacts based on a PPE approach permits an ESP applicant to defer the 
selection of a reactor design until the CP or COL stage. The PPE is discussed in more detail in 
Section 3.2 and Appendix I of this EIS. 

1.1.2 Site Preparation and Preliminary Construction Activities 

PSEG submitted an application to the NRC for an ESP that did not include a request for a 
limited work authorization (LWA). Prior to receiving a CP or COL, the holder of an ESP without 
an LWA may only perform preliminary activities that do not require NRC authorization, as 
enumerated in 10 CFR 50.10(a)(2) (TN249). These preliminary activities can include clearing 
and grading, excavating, erection of support buildings and transmission lines, and other 
associated activities. Because the ESP, if granted, would authorize no activities that would 
allow discharges into jurisdictional waters, a CWA Section 401 certification is not required prior 
to the issuance of this ESP. Subsequently, if PSEG applies for a CP, COL, or LWA, a CWA 
Section 401 certification from the State of New Jersey would be required, and any conditions of 
the CWA Section 401 certification would be incorporated into the license pursuant to 10 CFR 


NUREG-2168 


1-2 


November 2015 









Introduction 


50.54(aa) (TN249). The NRC regulations (10 CFR 50.54(aa) [TN249]) incorporate into the 
license any conditions in the CWA Section 401 certification. 

The purpose of the USACE action is to provide a DA action on PSEG’s permit application to 
build proposed structures and perform work in and underwaters of the United States, including 
wetlands, and to discharge dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States, 
including jurisdictional wetlands. 

1.1.3 NRC ESP Application Review 

In accordance with 10 CFR 52.17(a)(2) (TN251), PSEG submitted an ER as part of its ESP 
application (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The ER focuses on the environmental effects of construction 
and operation of reactors with characteristics that fall within the PPE. The ER also includes an 
evaluation of alternative sites to determine whether there is an obviously superior alternative to 
the proposed site. The ER is not required to include, but does include, an assessment of the 
benefits of the proposed action (e.g., the need for power) and a discussion of energy 
alternatives. 

The NRC staff conducts its reviews of ESP applications in accordance with guidance set forth in 
review standard RS-002, Processing Applications for Early Site Permits (NRC 2004-TN2219). 
The review standard draws from the previously published NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan 
for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants (NRC 2007-TN613), and 
NUREG-1555, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants: 
Environmental Standard Review Plan (ESRP) (NRC 2000-TN614). RS-002 provides guidance 
to the NRC staff reviewers to help ensure a thorough, consistent, and disciplined review of any 
ESP application. As stated in RS-002, an applicant may elect to use a PPE approach instead of 
supplying specific design information. The NRC staffs June 23, 2003, responses to comments 
received on draft RS-002 provide additional insights on the NRC staffs expectations and 
potential approach to the review of an application using the PPE approach (NRC 2003- 
TN2064). Specifically, the NRC staff adapted the ESRP review guidance to the PPE concept. 
The findings in this EIS reflect the adaptation of the ESRP guidance to the PPE approach. 

In addition, the NRC staff also considered the information and analyses provided in NUREG- 
1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS) 
(NRC 1996-TN288; NRC 1999-TN289; NRC 2013-TN2654), in its review. Because the GEIS 
included a review of data from all operating nuclear power plants, some of the information was 
useful for the environmental review of the proposed action. The NRC staff has identified in the 
text those areas where this information has been used. Additional guidance on conducting 
environmental reviews is provided in Interim Staff Guidance on Environmental Issues Associated 
with New Reactors (NRC 2014-TN3767). 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.75(b) (TN250), an EIS prepared by the NRC staff on an application for 
an ESP focuses on the environmental effects of construction and operation of a reactor, or 
reactors, that has design characteristics that fall within the site characteristics and design 
parameters. 


November 2015 


1-3 


NUREG-2168 




Introduction 


Such an EIS must also include an evaluation of alternative sites to determine whether there is 
any obviously superior alternative to the site proposed. The Commission regulations recognize 
that certain matters need not be resolved at the ESP stage (e.g., an assessment of the benefits, 
need for power, and energy alternatives) and, thus, may be deferred until an applicant decides 
to apply for a CP or COL. Nevertheless, this EIS does include an assessment of the need for 
power (see Chapter 8) and of the energy alternatives (see Section 9.2). 

The PSEG ESP application, including its ER, was submitted under oath or affirmation. 
Applicants use the body of the NRC regulatory guidance (e.g., Regulatory Guides, Review 
Standards, and Standard Review Plans) and can take advantage of approaches and methods 
that are acceptable to the NRC to analyze environmental impacts. The NRC staff relied upon 
the ER as a source of basic information about the plant parameters, the site, the region, and the 
environment. Subsequent to the acceptance of the application, the NRC staff visited the site; 
consulted with Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; and conducted its own independent 
review. This EIS is the result of the NRC staffs review and properly includes material from 
various sources, including the ER. Ultimately, the NRC is responsible for the reliability of all of 
the information used in its EIS. If, as part of its independent review, the NRC determines that 
information presented in the ER is useful and the NRC confirms its accuracy, then the NRC may 
use the information in its EIS. 

If a CP or COL applicant references the ESP, then in accordance with 10 CFR 51.50(c) and 
51.92(e) (TN250), the ER would contain—and the NRC staff would consider—any new and 
significant information for issues related to the impacts of construction and operation of the 
facility that were resolved in the ESP proceeding. Appendix J of this EIS contains a list of 
representations and assumptions used by the NRC staff to assess environmental impacts 
associated with building and operating a new nuclear power plant. The information in 
Appendix J is meant to aid the staff and the applicant in identifying new and potentially 
significant information at the COL stage, but it does not replace the analyses in the EIS. As 
described above, information that is new and significant is subject to reexamination at the COL 
or CP stage; however, the alternative site selection process is considered to be resolved 
through the ESP review process and is not addressed in a supplemental EIS. 

As provided by 10 CFR 52.39(a)(2) (TN251), the Commission shall treat those matters that are 
resolved through this EIS as resolved in any later proceeding on an application for a CP or COL 
referencing the requested PSEG ESP. However, as required by 10 CFR 51.50(c) (TN250), a 
CP or COL applicant must identify whether there is new and significant information on these 
resolved issues. This requirement complements the obligation of a CP or COL applicant 
referencing an ESP to provide information to resolve any significant environmental issue not 
considered in the previous proceeding on the ESP. Issuance of either a CP (and OL) or a COL 
to construct and operate a nuclear power plant is a major Federal action that requires its own 
environmental review in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 (TN250). As provided in 10 CFR 
52.79 (TN251) and under NEPA (42 USC 4321 et seq. -TN661), the CP or COL environmental 
review will be informed by the EIS prepared at the ESP stage, and the NRC staff intends to use 
tiering and incorporation-by-reference whenever it is appropriate to do so. The CP or COL 
applicant must address any other issue not considered or not resolved in the EIS for the ESP. 
Moreover, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.70(b) (TN250), the NRC is required to independently evaluate 
and be responsible for the reliability of all information used in the environmental review for a CP 


NUREG-2168 


1-4 


November 2015 


Introduction 


or COL application, and the NRC staff may (1) inquire into the continued validity of information 
disclosed in an ESP EIS that is referenced in a COL application and (2) look for any new and 
potentially significant information that may affect the assumptions, analyses, or conclusions 
reached in an ESP EIS. 

In addition, measures and controls to limit any adverse impact will be identified and evaluated 
for feasibility and adequacy in limiting adverse impacts at the ESP stage, where possible, and at 
the CP or COL stage. As a result of the NRC staff s environmental review of the ESP 
application, the NRC staff may determine that conditions or limitations on the ESP may be 
necessary in specific areas, as set forth in 10 CFR 52.24 (TN251). Therefore, the NRC staff 
identified in this EIS when and how assumptions and PPE values limit its conclusions on the 
environmental impacts to a particular resource (see Appendix J). 

Following requirements set forth in 10 CFR Part 51 (TN250) and the guidance in RS-002 
(NRC 2004-TN2219), the NRC environmental staff (and technical experts from Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory, Argonne National Laboratory, Brookhaven National Laboratory, and Pacific 
Northwest National Laboratory retained to assist the NRC staff) visited the alternative sites in 
April 2012 and the PSEG Site in May 2012 to gather information and to become familiar with the 
sites and their environs. During these site visits, the NRC staff and its contractor personnel met 
with the applicant’s staff, public officials, Federal and State regulators, local officials, and the 
public. A list of the organizations contacted is provided in Appendix B. Other documents 
related to the PSEG ESP application were reviewed and are listed as references where 
appropriate. 

Upon acceptance of the PSEG ESP application for docketing, the NRC began the 
environmental review process described in 10 CFR Part 51 (TN250) by publishing, in the 
Federal Register, a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS and conduct scoping (75 FR 63521- 
TN1530). The NRC staff held two public scoping meetings on November 4, 2010 in Carneys 
Point, New Jersey. Subsequent to the scoping meetings and in accordance with NEPA (42 
USC 4321 et seq. -TN661) and 10 CFR Part 51 (TN250), the NRC staff determined and 
evaluated the potential environmental impacts of constructing and operating one or two new 
nuclear power plants at the PSEG Site; findings are in this EIS. 

To guide its assessment of environmental impacts of a proposed action or alternative actions, 
the NRC has established a standard of significance for impacts using Council on Environmental 
Quality (CEQ) guidance (40 CFR 1508.27 [TN428]). Using this approach, the NRC has 
established three significance levels—SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE—which are defined 
below. 


SMALL - Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither 
destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. 

MODERATE - Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to 
destabilize, important attributes of the resource. 

LARGE - Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize 
important attributes of the resource. 


November 2015 


1-5 


NUREG-2168 


Introduction 


This EIS presents the NRC staffs analysis that considers and weighs the environmental 
impacts of the proposed action at the PSEG Site, including the environmental impacts 
associated with construction and operation of reactors at the site, the impacts of constructing 
and operating reactors at alternative sites, the environmental impacts of alternatives to granting 
the ESP, and mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental 
effects. It also provides the NRC staffs recommendation to the Commission regarding the 
suitability of the PSEG Site for construction and operation of reactors with characteristics that 
fall within the PPE. 

1.1.4 USACE Permit Application Review 

The USACE is part of the review team that makes a determination based on the three 
significance levels established by the NRC. However, the USACE independent Record of 
Decision (ROD) regarding the aforementioned permit application will reference the analyses in 
the EIS and present any additional information required by the USACE to support its permit 
decision. The USACE role as a cooperating agency in the preparation of this EIS is to confirm 
that the information presented in the EIS is adequate to fulfill the requirements of the USACE 
regulations and the 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR Part 230-TN427) to construct the preferred 
alternative identified in the EIS. The EIS is intended to present information adequate to fulfill the 
requirements of the USACE regulations, the 404(b)(1) Guidelines that contain the substantive 
environmental criteria used by the USACE in evaluating discharges of dredged or fill material 
into waters of the United States, and the USACE public interest review (PIR) process. The 
USACE PIR will be part of its permit decision document and thus will not be addressed in the 
EIS. 

The 404(b)(1) Guidelines stipulate that no discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the 
United States (including jurisdictional wetlands) shall be permitted if there is a practicable 
alternative that would have less adverse impact on the aquatic environment so long as the 
alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences. Even if an 
applicant’s preferred alternative is determined to be the least environmentally damaging 
practicable alternative (LEDPA), the USACE must still determine whether the LEDPA is in the 
public interest. The USACE PIR, described in 33 CFR 320.4 (TN424), directs the USACE to 
consider a number of factors in a balancing process. A permit will be not be issued for an 
alternative that is not the LEDPA, nor will a permit be issued for an activity that is determined to 
be contrary to the public interest. 

In this EIS, the USACE evaluates certain building and maintenance activities proposed in 
waters of the United States, including wetlands that would be impacted by the proposed project. 
The USACE decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and use of important 
resources. The benefit that reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal must be 
balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. Public interest factors that may be 
relevant to the proposal will be considered such as conservation; economics; aesthetics; 
general environmental concerns; wetlands; historic and cultural resources; fish and wildlife 
values; flood hazards; floodplain values; land use; navigation; shore erosion and accretion; 
recreation; water supply; water quality; energy needs; safety; food and fiber production; mineral 
needs; and considerations of property ownership, including cumulative impacts thereof and, in 
general, the needs and welfare of the people. Evaluation of the impact on the public interest will 


NUREG-2168 


1-6 


November 2015 


Introduction 


include application of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines promulgated by the EPA administrator under 
authority of CWA Section 404(b) (40 CFR Part 230-TN427). The USACE will address all of 
these issues in its permit decision document. 

As part of the USACE permit evaluation process, and following issuance of the draft EIS, the 
USACE released a public notice to solicit comments from the public; Federal, State, and local 
agencies and officials; Native American tribes; and other interested parties in order to consider 
and evaluate the impacts of the PSEG proposed project (USACE 2014-TN4319). 

The USACE will not make its permit decision on the proposed project until it fully considers the 
recommendations of the USACE staff; Federal, State, and local resource agencies; and 
members of the public and assesses the cumulative impact of the total project and until the 
following consultations and coordination efforts have been completed: Section 106 of the 
National Historic Preservation Act (54 USC 300101 et seq. -TN4157), including, as appropriate, 
development and implementation of any Memorandum of Agreement; Endangered Species Act 
of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq. -TNI010); Essential Fish Habitat Assessment (NOAA 1999- 
TN1845); state water-quality certifications; and state coastal zone consistency determinations. 

1.1.5 Preconstruction Activities 

In a final rule dated October 9, 2007, “Limited Work Authorizations (LWAs) for Nuclear Power 
Plants” (72 FR 57416-TN260), the Commission defined “construction” (10 CFR 50.10 [TN249] 
and 10 CFR 51.4 [TN250]) to be consistent with the NRC’s jurisdiction over activities having a 
nexus to radiological health and safety and/or common defense and security. Many of the 
activities required to build a nuclear power plant are not part of the NRC action to license the 
plant. Activities associated with building the plant that are not within the purview of the NRC 
action are grouped under the term “preconstruction.” Preconstruction activities include clearing 
and grading, excavating, erection of support buildings and transmission lines, and other 
associated activities. These preconstruction activities may take place before the application for 
a COL is submitted, during the NRC staff review of a COL application, or after a COL is granted. 
Although preconstruction activities are outside the NRC regulatory authority, nearly all of them 
are within the regulatory authority of local, State, or other Federal agencies. 

Because the preconstruction activities are not part of the NRC action, their impacts are not 
reviewed as a direct effect of the NRC action. Rather, the impacts of the preconstruction 
activities are considered in the context of cumulative impacts. In addition, certain 
preconstruction activities involve placing structures and performing work in and under navigable 
waters and discharging dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States (including 
jurisdictional wetlands) and require permits from the USACE. Such activities are viewed by the 
USACE as direct effects related to its Federal permitting action. Chapter 4 of this EIS describes 
the relative magnitude of impacts related to construction and preconstruction activities. 

1.1.6 Cooperating Agencies 

NEPA (42 USC 4321 et seq. -TN661) lays the groundwork for coordination between the lead 
agency preparing an EIS and other Federal agencies that may have special expertise regarding 
an environmental issue or jurisdiction by law. These other agencies are referred to as 


November 2015 


1-7 


NUREG-2168 




Introduction 


“cooperating agencies.” Cooperating agencies have the responsibility to assist the lead agency 
through early participation in the NEPA process, including scoping; by providing technical input 
to the environmental analysis; and by making staff support available as needed by the lead 
agency. 

Most proposed nuclear power plants require a permit from the USACE, where impacts are 
proposed to waters of the United States, in addition to a license from the NRC. Therefore, the 
NRC and the USACE decided the most effective and efficient use of Federal resources in the 
review of nuclear power projects would be achieved by a cooperative agreement. On 
September 12, 2008, the NRC and the USACE signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 
regarding the review of nuclear power plant license applications (USACE and NRC 2008- 
TN637). On June 24, 2011, the USACE Philadelphia District agreed by letter (USACE 2011- 
TN3305) to become a cooperating agency as defined in 10 CFR 51.14 (TN250). 

As described in the MOU, the NRC is the lead Federal agency and the USACE is a cooperating 
agency in the development of the EIS. Under Federal law, each agency has jurisdiction related 
to portions of the proposed project as major Federal actions that could significantly affect the 
quality of the human environment. The goal of this cooperative agreement is the development 
of one EIS that serves the needs of the NRC license decision process and the USACE DA 
permit decision process. While both agencies must comply with the requirements of NEPA 
(42 USC 4321 et seq. -TN661), both agencies also have independent or individual mission 
requirements that must be met. The NRC makes license decisions under the Atomic Energy 
Act of 1954, as amended (42 USC 2011 et seq. -TN663), and the USACE makes permit 
decisions under RHAA (33 USC 403 et seq. -TN660) and CWA (33 USC 1251 et seq. -TN662). 
The USACE is cooperating with the NRC to ensure that the information presented in the NEPA 
documentation is adequate to fulfill the requirements of the USACE regulations; the 404(b)(1) 
Guidelines (40 CFR Part 230-TN427), which contain the substantive environmental criteria used 
by the USACE in evaluating discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United 
States; and the USACE PIR process. 

As a cooperating agency, the USACE is part of the NRC review team and is involved in all 
aspects of the environmental review, including scoping, public meetings, public comment 
resolution, and EIS preparation. The NRC public meeting with the USACE serves the dual 
purpose of both agencies, with the USACE referring to the NRC-defined public meeting as its 
public hearing. The USACE district engineer or designee may participate in joint public 
hearings with other Federal or State agencies in accordance with 33 CFR Part 327 (TNI788) 
provided the procedures of those hearings meet the requirements of this regulation. In those 
cases in which the other Federal or State agency allows a cross-examination in its public 
hearing, the district engineer may still participate in the joint public hearing but shall not require 
cross-examination as a part of his participation. 

The USACE refers to public meetings to acquire information or evidence that will be considered 
in evaluating a proposed DA permit as hearings, but there is no adjudicatory process involved 
such as the NRC hearings conducted by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. For the 
purposes of assessment of environmental impact under NEPA (42 USC 4321 et seq. -TN661), 
the EIS uses the SMALL/MODERATE/LARGE criteria discussed in Section 1.1.3 of this EIS; 
this approach has been vetted by the CEQ. 


NUREG-2168 


1-8 


November 2015 



Introduction 


A cooperating agency may adopt the EIS of a lead Federal agency without recirculating it when 
the cooperating agency concludes, after an independent review of the EIS, that its comments 
and suggestions have been satisfied and issues an ROD. The goal of the process is that the 
USACE will have all the information necessary to make a permit decision when the final EIS is 
issued. However, it is possible the USACE may still need some information from the applicant 
to complete the permit documentation—information that the applicant could not make available 
by the time of final EIS issuance. Also, any conditions required by the USACE, such as 
compensatory mitigation, will be addressed in the USACE permit (if issued). Compensation 
may only be used after all appropriate and practical steps to avoid and minimize adverse 
impacts to aquatic resources, including wetlands and streams, have been taken. All remaining 
unavoidable impacts must be compensated to the extent appropriate and practicable. The 
USACE permit, if issued, would include special conditions to the effect that PSEG must confirm 
that any wetland compensation efforts have achieved their established goals and requirements 
in accordance with Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources, Final Rule 
([73 FR 19594-TN1789] and 33 CFR Parts 325 [TN425] and 332 [TNI472]). 

1.1.7 Concurrent NRC Reviews 

In reviews that are separate from, but parallel to, the EIS process, the NRC analyzes the safety 
characteristics of the proposed site and emergency planning information. These analyses are 
documented in an SER ( NRC 2015-TN4369 ) issued by the NRC in September 2015. The SER 
presents the conclusions reached by the NRC regarding (1) whether there is reasonable 
assurance that a reactor or reactors, having characteristics that fall within the parameters for the 
site, can be constructed and operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public; 
(2) whether the emergency preparedness program meets the applicable requirements in 10 
CFR Part 50 (TN249), 10 CFR Part 52 (TN251), 10 CFR Part 73 (TN423), and 10 CFR Part 100 
(TN282); and (3) whether site characteristics are such that adequate security plans and 
measures as referenced in the above regulations can be developed. 

1.2 The Proposed Federal Actions 

The proposed NRC Federal action is the issuance, under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 52 
(TN251), of an ESP for the PSEG Site for approval of a site suitable for constructing and 
operating nuclear power facilities that fall within the PPE described in the PSEG ESP 
application that would be operated as a merchant plant to supply baseload electrical power to 
the State of New Jersey and to the PJM Interconnection, LLC grid. The proposed USACE 
Federal action is a permit decision on a DA permit application pursuant to CWA Section 404 
(33 USC 1251 et seq. -TN662) and RHAA Section 10 (33 USC 403 et seq. -TN660). While 
PSEG is not proposing construction and operation of a new nuclear power plant under the ESP 
application, this EIS provides the NRC and USACE analyses of the environmental impacts that 
could result from building and operating a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site or at one 
of four alternative sites. These impacts are analyzed by the USACE to determine whether the 
proposed site is the LEDPA that would meet the project purpose and need. These impacts are 
also analyzed by the NRC to determine whether there is an alternative site that is obviously 
superior to the proposed site. 


November 2015 


1-9 


NUREG-2168 





Introduction 


The proposed PSEG Site is located adjacent to the existing HCGS and SGS on the southern 
part of Artificial Island on the east bank of the Delaware River. Of the 819-ac PSEG Site, PSEG 
owns 734 ac as part of the existing HCGS/SGS site. PSEG developed an agreement in 
principle with the USACE to acquire through a land exchange an additional 85 ac of the USACE 
Artificial Island Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) land immediately north of HCGS. In addition, 
during plant construction, PSEG would temporarily lease from the USACE 45 ac of the CDF 
land north of the proposed site as the location of the concrete batch plant and a construction 
laydown area. In this EIS, the proposed land exchange and land lease are addressed to the 
extent that actions resulting from the exchange or the lease would have direct impacts on the 
proposed PSEG Site (i.e., from the long-term use of 85 ac and the temporary use of 45 ac to 
construct and operate a new nuclear power plant on Artificial Island).* 1 ) 

For purposes of the ESP application, PSEG has not yet selected a specific reactor technology. 
PSEG developed its PPE using parameters from the following four reactor technologies. 

• Advanced Passive 1000 (API 000) (two units), 

• U.S. Evolutionary Power Reactor (U.S. EPR) (one unit), 

• Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) (one unit), 

• U.S. Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor (US-APWR) (one unit). 

This EIS analyzes the environmental impacts of the PPE surrogate reactor at the proposed 
PSEG Site. Chapter 3 of this EIS provides detailed information about the site layout and PPE 
selected by PSEG. 

1.3 The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Actions 

The purpose and need for the proposed NRC and USACE actions is described below. 

1.3.1 NRC Proposed Action 

The purpose and need for the NRC proposed action (i.e., ESP issuance) is to provide for early 
resolution of site safety and environmental issues, which provides stability in the licensing 
process. Although no reactor would be built at the PSEG Site under this action (the ESP), to 
resolve environmental issues the staff assumed in this EIS that a reactor with the parameters 
specified in the PPE would be built and operated. One of the issues addressed by this EIS is 
the projected shortfall in baseload capacity within the State of New Jersey in 2021. The ESP 
would resolve site suitability issues related to the building and operation of a new nuclear power 
plant that would provide up to 2,200 MW of new baseload capacity. This would meet a portion 
of the expected 2021 power deficit. In the absence of an ESP, safety and environmental 
reviews of applications for OLs under 10 CFR Part 50 (TN249) would take place during plant 
construction. Alternatively, ail safety and environmental issues would have to be addressed at 
the time of the NRC staff review of a COL submitted under 10 CFR Part 52 (TN251) if no ESP 
for the site were referenced. Although actual construction and operation of the facility would not 


(1) The USACE is conducting a separate NEPA analysis for the proposed land exchange and land lease 
agreements with PSEG. Cumulative impacts between the PSEG proposed project and the 
exchanged land, if any, will be addressed in Chapter 7 of this EIS. 


NUREG-2168 


1-10 


November 2015 




Introduction 


take place unless and until a COL were granted, certain lead-time activities, such as ordering 
and procuring certain components and materials necessary to construct the plant, may begin 
before the COL is granted. As a result, without the ESP review process there could be a 
considerable expenditure of funds, commitment of resources, and passage of time before site 
safety and environmental issues are finally resolved. 

1.3.2 The USACE Permit Action 

The PSEG permit application to the USACE is for work needed to prepare the PSEG Site for a 
new nuclear power plant. As part of the evaluation of permit applications subject to CWA 
Section 404 (33 USC 1251 et seq -TN662), the USACE must define the overall project purpose 
in addition to the basic project purpose. The overall project purpose establishes the scope of 
the alternatives analysis and is used for evaluating practicable alternatives under the 404(b)(1) 
Guidelines (40 CFR Part 230-TN427). In accordance with the guidelines and the USACE 
headquarters guidance, the overall project purpose must be specific enough to define the 
applicant’s needs but not so narrow and restrictive as to preclude a proper evaluation of 
alternatives. The USACE is responsible for controlling every aspect of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines 
(40 CFR Part 230-TN427) analysis. In this regard, defining the overall project purpose is the 
sole responsibility of the USACE. While generally focusing on the applicant’s statement, the 
USACE will, in all cases, exercise independent judgment in defining the purpose and need for 
the project from both the applicant’s alternatives and the public’s perspective (33 CFR Part 325 
Appendix B (9)(c)(4) [TN425]—see also 33 CFR Part 230 [TN2273]). 

Where the activity associated with a discharge is proposed for a special aquatic site (as defined 
in the 404(b)(1) Guidelines, 40 CFR Part 230, Subpart E [TN427]) and does not require access 
or proximity to or siting within these types of areas to fulfill its basic project purpose (i.e., the 
project is not “water dependent”), practicable alternatives that avoid special aquatic sites are 
presumed to be available unless clearly demonstrated otherwise (404(b)(1) Guidelines, 40 CFR 
230.10(a)(3) [TN427]). The basic purpose for the PSEG project is to conduct work associated 
with building a power plant to generate electricity for additional baseload capacity. 

Section 230.10(a) of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR Part 230-TN427) requires that “no 
discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the 
proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long 
as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences.” 
Section 230.10(a)(2) of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines states that “an alternative is practicable if it is 
available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, 
and logistics in light of overall project purposes. If it is otherwise a practicable alternative, an 
area not presently owned by the applicant that could reasonably be obtained, used, expanded, 
or managed to fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed activity may be considered.” Thus, this 
analysis is necessary to determine which alternative is the LEDPA that meets the project 
purpose and need. The overall purpose of the project is to construct a nuclear power plant 
facility to provide for additional baseload electrical generating capacity to meet the growing 
demand in the State of New Jersey. 


November 2015 


1-11 


NUREG-2168 



Introduction 


1.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Actions 

NEPA Section 102(2)(C)(iii) (42 USC 4321 et seq. -TN661) states that EISs will include a 
detailed statement on alternatives to the proposed action. The NRC regulations for 
implementing Section 102(2) of NEPA provide for inclusion of a chapter in an EIS that discusses 
the environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternatives (10 CFR Part 51, Subpart 
A, Appendix A [TN250]). Chapter 9 of this EIS discusses the environmental impacts of four 
categories of alternatives: (1) the no-action alternative, (2) energy alternatives, (3) alternative 
sites, and (4) system design alternatives. 

In the no-action alternative, the action would not go forward. The NRC could deny the PSEG 
request for an ESP. The no-action or permit denial alternative also is available to the USACE. 
The no-action alternative is one which results in no activities requiring a USACE permit. It may 
be brought by (1) the applicant electing to modify his proposal to eliminate work under the 
jurisdiction of the USACE or (2) the denial of the permit. If the request and/or permit were 
denied, the construction and operation of a new nuclear power plant at the proposed PSEG Site 
in accordance with the 10 CFR Part 52 (TN251) process referencing an approved ESP would 
not occur, nor would any benefits intended by the approved ESP be realized. 

The discussion of energy alternatives focuses on those sources of energy that could meet the 
purpose and need of the project to generate baseload power. 

The four alternative sites considered in detail in this EIS include Site 4-1 in Hunterdon County, 
New Jersey; Sites 7-1 and 7-2 in Salem County, New Jersey; and Site 7-3 in Cumberland 
County, New Jersey. Chapter 9 also includes sections discussing (1) the PSEG region of 
interest for identification of alternative plant sites, (2) the methods used by PSEG to select the 
proposed site and alternative sites, and (3) generic issues that are consistent among the 
alternative sites. Chapter 9 compares the environmental impacts at the proposed PSEG Site to 
those at the alternative sites and qualitatively determines whether any of those alternative sites 
is obviously superior to the proposed site. 

System design alternatives include heat dissipation and circulating water systems, intake and 
discharge structures, and water use and treatment systems. Finally, the USACE will continue to 
review additional efforts to avoid and minimize potential impacts to waters of the United States, 
including wetlands and cultural and natural resources on the site. 

As part of the evaluation of permit applications subject to CWA Section 404 (33 USC 1251 et 
seq. -TN662), the USACE is required by regulation to apply the criteria set forth in the 404(b)(1) 
Guidelines (40 CFR Part 230-TN427). These guidelines establish criteria that must be met for 
the proposed activities to be permitted pursuant to Section 404. Specifically, the guidelines 
state, in part, that no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a 
practicable alternative to the proposed discharge that would have less adverse impacts on the 
aquatic ecosystem provided the alternative does not have other significant adverse 
consequences (40 CFR 230.10(a) [TN427]). If it is otherwise a practicable alternative, an area 
not presently owned by the applicant that could reasonably be obtained, used, expanded, or 
managed to fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed activity may be considered. 


NUREG-2168 


1-12 


November 2015 




Introduction 


1.5 Compliance and Consultations 

Before construction and operation of a new reactor or reactors, PSEG is required to hold certain 
Federal, State, and local environmental permits and meet relevant Federal and State statutory 
requirements. In its ER, PSEG provided a list of environmental approvals and consultations 
associated with the ESP. Because an ESP is limited to establishing the acceptability of the 
proposed site for future development of a nuclear power facility a number of authorizations 
PSEG will need from Federal, State, and local authorities for construction and operation are not 
yet necessary. 

Concurrent with its filing of the ESP application to the NRC, PSEG filed an application for a 
Coastal Zone Management Act (16 USC 1451 et seq. -TN1243) consistency determination from 
the State of New Jersey. On July 13, 2010, the NJDEP Division of Land Use Regulation issued 
its determination that the PSEG ESP application is consistent with the New Jersey Rules on 
Coastal Zone Management (NJAC 7:7E-TN2272) with one condition: 

"As proposed, the project will require a CAFRA Individual Permit, Coastal Wetlands Permit, 
Waterfront Development Permit and Freshwater Wetlands Individual Permit from the 
Division. These permits must be obtained prior to any construction activities on the site 
related to the project described above” (NJDEP 2010-TN235). 

PSEG has not filed an application for a CWA (33 USC 1251 et seq. -TN662) Section 401 
certification from the State of New Jersey. 

The NRC staff considered the necessary authorizations and consultations and contacted the 
appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies to identify any compliance, permit, or significant 
environmental issues of concern to the reviewing agencies that may impact the suitability of the 
PSEG Site for the construction and operation of the reactors that fall within the PPE. 

1.6 Report Contents 

The subsequent chapters of this EIS are organized as follows. Chapter 2 describes the 
proposed site and discusses the environment that would be affected by the addition of a new 
nuclear power plant. Chapter 3 examines the power plant characteristics to be used as the 
basis for evaluation of the environmental impacts. Chapters 4 and 5 examine site suitability by 
analyzing the environmental impacts of construction (Chapter 4) and operation (Chapter 5) of a 
new nuclear power plant. Chapter 6 analyzes the environmental impacts of the fuel cycle, 
transportation of radioactive materials, and decommissioning, while Chapter 7 discusses the 
cumulative impacts of the proposed action. Chapter 8 discusses the need for power from a new 
nuclear power plant. Chapter 9 discusses alternatives to the proposed action; analyzes energy 
sources, alternative sites, and systems design; and compares the proposed action with the 
alternatives. Chapter 10 summarizes the findings of the preceding chapters and presents the 
NRC staffs conclusions and recommendations with respect to Commission approval of the 
proposed site for an ESP based on the NRC staffs evaluation of environmental impacts. 

The appendices provide the following additional information: 

• Appendix A - Contributors to the Environmental Impact Statement; 


November 2015 


1-13 


NUREG-2168 


Introduction 


• Appendix B - Organizations Contacted; 

• Appendix C - Chronology of NRC and USACE Staff Environmental Review Correspondence 
Related to the PSEG Power, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear, LLC (PSEG), Application for an Early 
Site Permit (ESP) at the PSEG Site; 

• Appendix D - Scoping Comments and Responses; 

• Appendix E - Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comments and Responses; 

• Appendix F - Key Consultation Correspondence; 

• Appendix G - Supporting Information and Data: Population Projections and Radiological 
Dose Assessment; 

• Appendix H - List of Authorizations, Permits, and Certifications; 

• Appendix I - PSEG Site Characteristics and Plant Parameter Envelope Values; 

• Appendix J - PSEG Representations and Assumptions; and 

• Appendix K - Greenhouse Gas Footprint Estimates for a Reference 1,000-MW(e) Light 
Water Reactor (LWR). 


NUREG-2168 


1-14 


November 2015 




2.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 


The site proposed by PSEG Power, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear, LLC (PSEG), for an early site 
permit (ESP) and a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) action on a U.S. Department of the 
Army (DA) permit is located adjacent to the existing Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) 
and Salem Generating Station (SGS) in Lower Alloways Creek Township. Salem County, New 
Jersey (Figure 2-1). The proposed site location is described in Section 2.1, followed by 
descriptions of site land use. water, ecology, socioeconomics, environmental justice, historic 
and cultural resources, geology, meteorology and air quality, and nonradiological health, and 
radiological environment in Sections 2.2 through 2.11, respectively. Section 2.12 discusses 
related Federal projects. 

2.1 Site Location 

The PSEG Site is located on the southern part of Artificial Island in Lower Alloways Creek 
Township. Salem County, New Jersey. Artificial Island was formed from dredge spoils 
produced as a result of maintenance dredging of the Delaware River navigation channel by the 
USACE. The site is approximately 7 mi east of Middletown, Delaware; 7.5 mi southwest of 
Salem, New Jersey; and 9 mi south of Pennsville. New Jersey. Figure 2-1 depicts the location 
of the PSEG Site in relationship to nearby counties and cities within the context of the 
50-mi region and the 6-mi vicinity. 

The PSEG Site is located adjacent to HCGS and SGS on the northwestern portion of the 
existing PSEG property. Figure 2-2 depicts the proposed site in relation to the existing units. 
PSEG owns 734 ac of the site and has developed an agreement with the USACE to acquire 
85 ac immediately north of the existing PSEG property. Thus, the total PSEG Site would 
encompass 819 ac. Figure 2-3 presents an aerial photograph of the existing PSEG property. 
PSEG calculated the center point of a new plant based on a composite drawing of a surrogate 
plant derived from the four reactor technologies on which PSEG's plant parameter envelope 
(PPE) is based: 

• Latitude: 39°28'23.744" North 

• Longitude: 75°32'24.332" West 

The Delaware River borders the western and southern sides of the existing PSEG property. 
Lands developed by the USACE as the Artificial Island Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) for the 
placement of material dredged from the Delaware River are located immediately north of the 
PSEG property along the east bank of the river. Lands consisting of tidal marsh are located to 
the north and east of the PSEG property. 

PSEG's proposed site is located 15 mi south of the Delaware Memorial Bridge near Delaware 
River Mile (RM) 52 on the east side of the Delaware River. The portion of the river flowing 
adjacent to the site is 2.5 mi wide. The site is 18 mi south of Wilmington, Delaware, and 30 mi 
southwest of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 


November 2015 


2-1 


NUREG-2168 



Affected Environment 



leoaoon 


Trenton 


Umojrstt* 


Philadelphia 


Garftdeo 


AtWOwrn- 
kjvt? oc Gracei 


MKkJtefcMn 


in^iarW 


Dcvcr 


■VW*’ 
ftOOTl Vi ’ 
Cjpe 


Figure 2-1. PSEG Site Location Vicinity (6-mi boundary) and Region (50-mi ring) (Source: 
Modified from PSEG 2015-TN4280) 


NUREG-2168 


2-2 


November 2015 



















Affected Environment 



November 2015 


2-3 


NUREG-2168 


Figure 2-2. PSEG Site Utilization Plan (Source: Modified from PSEG 2012-TN1489) 















































































































Affected Environment 



NUREG-2168 


2-4 


November 2015 


Figure 2-3. Aerial View of the Existing PSEG Property (Source: Modified from PSEG 2015-TN4280) 












Affected Environment 


2.2 Land Use 

This section discusses existing land uses and land-related issues for the PSEG Site, including 
the proposed location for a new nuclear power plant. Section 2.2.1 describes land use on the 
site and in the vicinity, defined as the area encompassed within a 6-mi radius of the site. 

Section 2.2.2 discusses land use along the existing transmission line corridors from the PSEG 
Site, the existing access road corridor for the PSEG Site, and the proposed access road corridor 
for the PSEG Site. Section 2.2.3 discusses land use in the region, which is defined as the area 
within 50 mi of the PSEG Site boundary. 

2.2.1 The Site and Vicinity 

The PSEG Site is located adjacent to HCGS and SGS on the northwestern portion of the 
existing PSEG property in Lower Alloways Creek Township, Salem County, New Jersey 
(Figure 2-1). The site is located on the southern part of Artificial Island on the east bank of the 
Delaware River. The creation of Artificial Island began around 1900, when the USACE began 
disposing of hydraulic dredge spoils within a diked area established around a naturally occurring 
sandbar that projected into the river. Over the years, the diked area was enlarged to 
accommodate additional spoils materials produced as a result of maintenance dredging of the 
Delaware River navigation channel. As this area was filled in and enlarged, it became known as 
Artificial Island (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Of the 819-ac PSEG Site, PSEG owns 734 ac as part of the existing PSEG property. PSEG 
has developed an agreement in principle with the USACE to acquire an additional 85 ac of the 
USACE Artificial Island CDF land immediately north of HCGS (Figure 2-2). Therefore, the 
PSEG Site would total 819 ac. In addition, during plant construction, PSEG would temporarily 
lease, from the USACE. 45 ac of the Artificial Island CDF land north of the PSEG Site as the 
location of the concrete batch plant and a construction/laydown area. At the completion of 
construction, PSEG would return the 45 ac of leased land to the USACE, subject to any 
required long-term exclusion area boundary (EAB) control conditions from the NRC. The lands 
to be acquired and leased by PSEG from the USACE are currently part of the 350-ac Artificial 
Island CDF (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Of the existing 734-ac PSEG property, a total of 373 ac is used for HCGS (153 ac) and SGS 
(220 ac). The remaining 361 ac is composed of developed upland areas in industrial use, a 
variety of wetland types, and maintained stormwater management facilities (e.g., swales and 
detention basins). Much of this land previously has been developed and disturbed for various 
power plant uses. The elevation of the terrain across the PSEG Site generally ranges from 5 to 
15 ft North American Vertical Datum 1988 (NAVD88), and developed areas of the site are 
nominally 10 to 12 ft NAVD88 (PSEG 2015-TN4280). HCGS is a single-unit boiling water 
reactor (BWR) with a current licensed thermal power of 3,840 MW(t). SGS has two pressurized 
water reactors (PWR), each with a current licensed thermal power of 3,459 MW(t). An access 
road connects the existing PSEG property to a secondary road 3.6 mi to the east. The existing 
PSEG property can also be accessed from the Delaware River; barge access points for SGS 
and HCGS are located at the southern end and western side of Artificial Island, respectively 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). 


November 2015 


2-5 


NUREG-2168 


Affected Environment 


According to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) land use and 
land cover (LULC) data cited by PSEG (2014-TN3281), major land uses within the PSEG 
property boundary include industrial, Ptog/ 77 /tes-dominated coastal and interior wetlands, old 
field, other urban or built-up, Phragmites- dominated old field, and undeveloped rights-of-way 
(ROWs). Figure 2-4 and Figure 2-5 present the types and distribution of land use on and 
around the existing PSEG property, and Table 2-1 lists the area for each land-use category 
within the 819-ac PSEG Site. Dominant land uses on the existing PSEG property are urban or 
built up lands that include the existing SGS and HCGS facilities and wetlands dominated by 
monotypic populations of common reed ( Phragmites australis ). These dominant land uses 
include industrial (31.9 percent), Phragmites-6om\r\a\e6 coastal wetlands (17.3 percent), and 
Phragmites- dominated interior wetlands (12.9 percent). Old field land and other urban or built- 
up land account for 9.5 and 7.0 percent of the PSEG property, respectively. The remaining 
property includes altered lands, artificial lakes, deciduous brush/shrubland, deciduous 
scrub/shrub and herbaceous wetlands, disturbed wetlands, recreation land, tidal-related lands, 
transportation/communication/utilities, wetland and upland ROWs, Phragmites- dominated urban 
areas and old field, and managed wetland in maintained lawn greenspace (PSEG 2014- 
TN3281). 

Most of the PSEG Site lies within the current PSEG property boundary. However, as discussed 
above, PSEG would acquire additional land (85 ac) north of HCGS for locating permanent plant 
facilities, and would lease additional land (45 ac) north of HCGS for locating temporary 
construction support facilities. Of the 85 ac to be acquired for permanent plant facilities, 50 ac 
are now part of the USACE Artificial Island CDF and 35 ac are now part of an adjoining coastal 
marsh. All of the 45 ac to be leased are part of the Artificial Island CDF (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

NJDEP LULC data indicate the 85-ac parcel to be acquired by PSEG is composed primarily of 
Phragmites-6 ominated coastal and interior wetlands (61.1 percent), artificial lakes 
(30.8 percent), and other urban or built-up lands (5.5 percent), as seen in Table 2-1 
(PSEG 2014-TN3281). The 45-ac parcel to be leased by PSEG is composed primarily of 
disturbed and Phragmites-6om\r\aie6 coastal and interior wetlands (91.1 percent) (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280). The entire area to be acquired and leased is highly disturbed, consisting of 
unvegetated sand and Phragmites-tiominateti vegetation (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The actual 
acreage of wetland habitat and open water within the existing CDFs at Artificial Island may 
change because of ongoing dredge disposal operations. 

Activities including the discharge of dredge or fill materials into waters of the United States, 
including wetlands, require permit authorization from the USACE under Section 404 of the 
Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC 1251 et seq. -TN662). Additionally, the USACE regulates any 
work or structures affecting waters of the United States, including wetlands, under Section 10 of 
the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act (33 USC 403 et seq. -TN660). NJDEP regulates 
coastal wetlands under the New Jersey Wetlands Act of 1970 (NJSA 13:9A et seq. -TN3361), 
and freshwater wetlands are regulated under the New Jersey Freshwater Wetlands Protection 
Act (NJAC 7:7A-TH4284)(PSEG 2012-TN2389). 


NUREG-2168 


2-6 


November 2015 



Affected Environment 



LAND COVtB a 
4wxw>nc MASiTAi 
M 440M (M« A* t* 

M TA •'S**S NL.MC »»»J WC 'IX MT»i 

t: irrcx j»n 
MMCUIM 

C tMMC WCm) CMIUTCmS 
M 0*C4\AJ< mo 1 x 3 -^*^ MO 

■3 C*;>vAC*v»<uAStxAUat^H^f^VU. iA*xl 
44 ;*«■ vj»ca',*« 

»M)S(N 
C3k«o«i 
C3 TAMi'cixuim 
MWlOECD LAND ISM t 
•4 juc4 

44 HiM 3CKXXJ 

M co*h*:xw*«ij 
M wa 

•4 >»M C* kA.'«A lmo 

•4 mi jci-, MUtfii 

•4 •! :»t*"»3AAi 

*4 wst»)i*Ai. ■*> C4XSV'. oa a.i'AJ Mt-«PS 

•4 4tOMi*X Mkk I W M cm* 

•4 HlUh**. MU Jri iOa Mats'. 

44 4K<Ox tnxi V»" «Jv«»«K!t 
44 'AMftAO*'AT C**C MVACA'KM.n.'d 
44 STUMC «M gn«OTC 

f«»T 

•4 MCOuOut rjnii xie\ cwcmm : . c^ j>t 
44 HOCvM »CM*3* , -»c\ CAM CV3J-XA 

OU> nriD MA4TTAT 

44 CUAMUm* 4MJ»« T—U 41MP 
44 OtOOAXA 4*‘. :•» 

«r. *»>ir rcooxutcoMixxn *»jx>m»j4uac 
94 OlO »fc_C cowtt 

44 >v«>3w’i: 3 owun aeraie 

44 iMuakC mm WA04V4VSM4P 

WETLAND 

44 MAOAfAA, N'UOl <KC»e 
44 SNnwx*. wocoas nuahc: 

0 MOCUM K4*>*4 N'JUO 
44 ncoxu moa: 

44 3G~*mz mr~.A+c-z 
44 ’(X amx: 

44 4NACKVI ATJWC’i 

44 »TjuC *1 MAMTAMCC JM MUX3AAJ 

C3 »'<? KM44J «<*U«C3 CACCVX 1 COW 1 
44 A4a)«'|J kmuti COAJTai «tjuO) 

44 AA i T l; ssnun m-xmcm «t*iuo: 

44 XN M»*> MS' wu> 

44 KM «A4>- ,04 «M*I» 

44 wr-^AAC ■o-~ 5 -o* wav 



Figure 2-4. 


PSEG Site and Near Offsite Land Use (Source: Modified from PSEG 2015- 
TN4280) 


November 2015 


2-7 


NUREG-2168 



















Affected Environment 


i- 




itMunlA KAHuiAn mw' + n- -**■«* **=• 



iviiaiu ft n - <■ 


«ruwa 


■ 


□ — 

kxuAoc — fTT— wa *: umn 


LEGEND 


VA KiM~rtC*£imAmm 

| rSfscmad C».i—ny 
CD 9li 1k>**nAmy 



kin i 


Figure 2-5. NJDEP 2002 Land Use and Land Cover Within the PSEG Site (Source: 
Modified from PSEG 2014-TN3281) 


NUREG-2168 


2-8 


November 2015 



















Affected Environment 


Table 2-1. NJDEP 2002 Land Use and Land Cover Within the Proposed PSEG Site 



Existing PSEG 
Property 

85-Ac Parcel 
to be Acquired 

PSEG 

Site Total 

New Jersey LULC Categories 

Area 

(ac) 

Percent 

Area 

(ac) 

Percent 

Area 

(ac) 

Percent 

Urban or Built Up 

Industrial 

234.5 

31.9 

0.0 

0.0 

234.5 

28.6 

Transportation/Communication/Utilities 

8.5 

1.2 

0.0 

0.0 

8.5 

1.0 

Wetlands Rights-of-Way 

23.8 

3.2 

0.0 

0.0 

23.8 

2.9 

Upland Rights-of-Way (developed) 

0.5 

0.1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.5 

0.1 

Upland Rights-of-Way (undeveloped) 

29.5 

4.0 

0.0 

0.0 

29.5 

3.6 

Other Urban or Built-up Land 

51.1 

7.0 

4.7 

5.5 

55.8 

6.8 

Phragmites -Dominated Urban Area 

0.5 

0.1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.5 

0.1 

Recreational Land 

4.9 

0.7 

0.0 

0.0 

4.9 

0.6 

Subtotal: 

353.3 

48.1 

4.7 

5.5 

358.0 

43.7 

Forested Land 

Old Field (<25% Brush Covered) 

69.4 

9.5 

0.0 

0.0 

69.4 

8.5 

Phragmites-Domlnaied Old Field 

31.9 

4.3 

0.0 

0.0 

31.9 

3.9 

Deciduous Brush/Shrubland 

6.0 

0.8 

0.0 

0.0 

6.0 

0.7 

Subtotal: 

107.3 

14.6 

0.0 

0.0 

107.3 

13.1 

Water 

Artificial Lakes (a) 

14.2 

1.9 

26.2 

30.8 

40.4 

4.9 

Tidal Rivers, Inland Bays, and Other 

3.9 

0.5 

1.7 

2.0 

5.6 

0.7 

Tidal Waters 

Subtotal: 

18.1 

2.5 

27.9 

32.8 

46.0 

5.6 

Wetlands 

Saline Marsh 

0.0 

0.0 

0.2 

0.2 

0.2 

0.0 

Phragmites-Dominaieti Coastal 

127.3 

17.3 

28.3 

33.3 

155.6 

19.0 

Wetlands 

Deciduous Scrub/Shrub Wetlands 

4.6 

0.6 

0.0 

0.0 

4.6 

0.6 

Herbaceous Wetlands 

5.8 

0.8 

0.0 

0.0 

5.8 

0.7 

Phragmites -Dominated Interior 

95.0 

12.9 

23.7 

27.8 

118.7 

14.5 

Wetlands 

Subtotal: 

232.7 

31.7 

52.2 

61.3 

284.9 

34.8 

Barren Land 

Altered Lands 

14.6 

2.0 

0.2 

0.2 

14.8 

1.8 

Disturbed Wetlands (Modified) 

4.2 

0.6 

0.1 

0.1 

4.3 

0.5 

Subtotal: 

18.8 

2.6 

0.3 

0.4 

19.1 

2.3 

Managed Wetlands 

Managed Wetland in Maintained Lawn 

3.8 

0.5 

0.0 

0.0 

3.8 

0.5 

Greenspace 

Subtotal: 

3.8 

0.5 

0.0 

0.0 

3.8 

0.5 

Total: 

734.0 

100.0 

85.1 

100.0 

819.1 

100.0 

(a) Includes desilt basins 

Source: Staff, based on PSEG 2014-TN3281. 








November 2015 


2-9 


NUREG-2168 








Affected Environment 


PSEG submitted an application for a line verification letter of interpretation (LOI) to NJDEP for 
the PSEG Site. Additionally, PSEG submitted a Jurisdictional Determination Request to the 
USACE to clarify the USACE’s jurisdiction on the USACE’s 85-ac CDF facility immediately north 
of the PSEG Site. As part of their request, PSEG submitted results of jurisdictional wetland 
delineation conducted in accordance with procedures identified in the Federal Manual for 
Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (USACE et al. 1989-TN4285) and Corps of 
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (USACE 1987-TN2066) at the PSEG Site. Freshwater 
wetland complexes were identified, flagged, and surveyed. Hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, 
and wetland hydrology were identified and described at each of the data collection points. 
Additionally, PSEG submitted a description of the 85-ac CDF facility along with interpretation of 
USACE Regulatory Guidance and descriptions of the CDF hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation, 
and hydric soil to support wetland determination (PSEG 2012-TN2389). 


A total of 39 Federal jurisdictional freshwater wetland units covering approximately 158.7 ac 
were identified by the USACE in a letter dated February 24, 2014, to PSEG (USACE 2014- 
TN3282). These areas were identified as Block 26, lots 2, 4, 4.01, 5, and 5.01 in Lower 
Alloways Creek Township, Salem County, New Jersey. Any proposal to perform work, build 
structures, or discharge dredge or fill material into the identified areas would require prior 
approval from the Philadelphia District Corps of Engineers. Figure 2-6 depicts the jurisdictional 
wetlands (considered important terrestrial habitat) on the PSEG Site. The printed version of this 
figure may not be legible; however, the electronic version is viewable when zoomed in. 

Figure 2-6 includes wetlands mapped by NJDEP (coastal wetlands) and those delineated on the 
site as part of the site (e.g., USACE CDF facility, PSEG desilt basin, and freshwater wetlands). 

A total of 164.9 ac of coastal wetlands and 158.68 ac of freshwater wetlands have been 


mapped on the PSEG Site (PSEG 2015-TN4280; USACE 2014-TN3282). The 39 Federal 
jurisdictional freshwater wetland units were individually identified as Al, AA, B1, BB, CC, CDF3, 
D, D1, Dla, Dlb, Die, Did, DD, E, F, FI, G, G1, H, HI, I, II, J, K, L, N, O, 01, P, Q, R, S, T, U, 
V, W, X, Y, and Z. USACE jurisdictional freshwater wetlands located in unit CDF3 were 
identified during a site investigation on December 5, 2013. The remaining USACE jurisdictional 
wetland units were included in the NJDEP LOI (USACE 2014-TN3282). 


The only roads and transmission corridors that traverse, or are located near, the PSEG property 
are those that serve SGS and HCGS. In addition, no prime farmland soils are within the 
boundaries of the PSEG Site. Large portions of the PSEG Site were disturbed previously for 
construction of SGS and HCGS or were used by the USACE for dredge material disposal. 

Salem County is situated within the Atlantic Coastal Plain, which is composed of a sequence of 
unconsolidated, highly permeable to relatively impermeable quartz-dominated gravel, sand, silt, 
glauconitic sand (i.e., greensand), and clay strata. Therefore, the principal mineral resources 
within Salem County are sand and gravel, but no gravel or sand mining operations occur on the 
PSEG Site (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 


Cultural resources within the area likely to be affected by construction of a new nuclear power 
plant at the PSEG Site have been identified, including archaeological sites and architectural 
resources. Details are provided in Sections 2.7 and 4.6. 


NUREG-2168 


2-10 


November 2015 






Affected Environment 


$ 


I 






November 2015 


2-11 


NUREG-2168 


Figure 2-6. USACE Jurisdictional Determination Block 26, Lots 2, 4, 4.01, 5, and 5.01, Lower Alloways Creek Township 
(Source: USACE 2013-TN3283) 



















Affected Environment 


Under the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) (16 USC 1451 et seq. -TNI243), 
activities of Federal agencies affecting coastal zones must be consistent with the approved 
coastal management program (CMP) of the state or territory to the maximum extent practical. 
CZMA provisions apply to all actions requiring Federal approval (e.g., new plant licenses and 
license renewals) that affect the coastal zone in a state or territory with a Federally approved 
CMP. The PSEG Site is subject to the provisions of the CZMA, so PSEG filed an application for 
a CZMA consistency determination from the State of New Jersey. On July 13, 2010, NJDEP’s 
Division of Land Use Regulation issued its determination that PSEG’s ESP application is 
consistent with New Jersey’s Rules on Coastal Zone Management as amended to January 20, 
2009 (NJAC 7:7E-TN2272) with one condition: 

“As proposed, the project will require a [Coastal Area Facility Review Act (NJSA 
13:19 et seq. -TN4304) CAFRA Individual Permit, Coastal Wetlands Permit, 

Waterfront Development Permit, and Freshwater Wetlands Individual Permit from 
the Division. These permits must be obtained prior to any construction activities 
on the site related to the project described above” (NJDEP 2010-TN235). 

The New Jersey State Planning Commission’s State Plan Policy Map delineates a “Heavy 
Industry-Transportation-Utility Node” on Artificial Island, including 501 ac of the existing 734-ac 
HCGS/SGS site (PSEG 2012-TN2282). In 2002, NJDEP amended the CAFRA Planning Map to 
include the Energy Facility Node, recognizing among other things that this designation would 
enable PSEG to maintain and upgrade its existing nuclear facilities. The “Node” designation 
allows for increased impervious cover and intensity of use (PSEG 2012-TN2282). 

On May 30, 2012, PSEG submitted a petition to the Department of State, Office for Planning 
Advocacy (OPA), for expansion of PSEG’s existing Heavy Industry-Transportation-Utility Node 
(PSEG 2012-TN2282). The expansion of the Node boundary to the north would include the 
location of the proposed nuclear power plant and 288 ac of the Artificial Island CDF. In addition 
to 288 ac of land within the CDF, PSEG also petitioned for an amendment to the existing Node 
for land currently on PSEG property. This amendment would increase the existing Node on the 
PSEG Site from 501 to 534 ac (PSEG 2012-TN2282). 

PSEG’s petition for Node change is currently under review at OPA. PSEG anticipates OPA will 
deem the application complete soon and that the remaining process of acquiring OPA approval 
and subsequent amendment to New Jersey’s Coastal Zone Management Rules (NJAC 7:7E- 
TN2272) would take 8 to 16 months (PSEG 2012-TN2282). 

Salem County, New Jersey and New Castle County, Delaware are the only counties located 
within the 6-mi vicinity of the PSEG Site (Figure 2-7). Most of the land north and east of the 
PSEG Site is owned by the Federal government (under control of the USACE) and the State of 
New Jersey. Of the USACE land north of the PSEG Site, 305 ac has been developed for use 
as the Artificial Island CDF (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 


NUREG-2168 


2-12 


November 2015 



Affected Environment 





. . . 


a t>t>ots v#j{jc>* w <ji.t* 

Wjnig*m#n: Ar*j 


*ugus bn* 
W. dirf# Ar*j 


• * ' 


ss 


\;7 


i 




:e 


Salem 4 
County § 




: c 


* * 


V 


- 


\iR ■ 

'* aV^ 


New Castle 


,> Editing m 

Acc*$x RoaST 


Counry , 


* 


rv 


V 

I HOTS* C r**k WtKJi 
MjnAg*mVit Ar*a 


v : 


C*«Jf SAamp 
W'.diff* Arti 


Delaware Bay 


« mintx/ 


Re fere n ce 22 14 

N 


l f ' .? N[ 


unti ivrv i!m»tatap 




Figure 2-7. Land Use Within the Vicinity of the PSEG Site (Source: Modified from PSEG 
2015-TN4280) 


November 2015 


2-13 


NUREG-2168 













Affected Environment 


The PSEG Site and all surrounding land in the 6-mi vicinity is located in the Coastal Lowlands 
subregion of the Atlantic Coastal Plain, is at a low elevation, and has little topographical relief. 
The Coastal Lowlands is characterized by poor drainage, shallow water tables, abundant 
wetlands, and tidal streams and rivers. Land uses within the Coastal Lowlands include 
wetlands (46 percent), agriculture (27 percent), forest (20 percent), urban (6 percent), and 
barren land (1 percent) (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

According to U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) LULC data cited in the PSEG Environmental 
Report (ER) (PSEG 2015-TN4280), three major land uses (open water, wetlands, and 
agriculture) account for 94 percent of the total 73,711 ac within the 6-mi vicinity. Table 2-2 
presents the acreage for each of 13 land uses within the vicinity. Open water (primarily the 
Delaware River) represents 36.4 percent of the total vicinity area, while wetlands (emergent 
herbaceous and woody wetlands) and agriculture represent 34.7 and 23.2 percent, 
respectively. Developed land, forests, and barren land account for the remaining land use 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). Figure 2-7 defines the areas within New Jersey and Delaware that are 
included within the vicinity and depicts the distribution of the land cover and land use within this 
area. 


Table 2-2. Land Use in the Vicinity (6-mi radius) and Region (50-mi radius) of the PSEG 
Site 


USGS Land-Use Designation 

Vicinity 

Region 

Area (ac) 

Percent 

Area (ac) 

Percent 

Open Water 

26,837 

36.4 

791,821 

15.7 

Developed-Open Space 

361 

0.5 

239,221 

4.8 

Developed-Low Intensity 

274 

0.4 

212,047 

4.2 

Developed-Medium Intensity 

113 

0.1 

119,697 

2.4 

Developed-High Intensity 

191 

0.2 

60,018 

1.2 

Barren Land 

651 

0.9 

54,142 

1.1 

Deciduous Forest 

2,573 

3.5 

1,028,552 

20.5 

Evergreen Forest 

67 

0.1 

156,524 

3.1 

Mixed Forest 

13 

0.0 

33,828 

0.7 

Pasture Hay 

3,748 

5.1 

774,432 

15.4 

Cultivated Crops 

13,349 

18.1 

1,075,101 

21.4 

Woody Wetlands 

8,979 

12.2 

279,248 

5.5 

Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 

16,555 

22.5 

199,603 

4.0 

Totals 

73,711 

100.0 

5,024,234 

100.0 

Source: PSEG 2015-TN4280. 


Figure 2-7 identifies four wildlife management areas (WMAs) within the 6-mi vicinity. Two are 
located in New Castle County, Delaware (Augustine and Cedar Swamp WMAs), and two are in 
Salem County, New Jersey (Abbotts Meadow and Mad Horse Creek WMAs). Augustine and 
Cedar Swamp WMAs total of 8,182 ac, and Abbotts Meadow and Mad Horse Creek WMAs total 
10,509 ac (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 


NUREG-2168 


2-14 


November 2015 











Affected Environment 


Figure 2-8 identifies prime farmland and farmland of unique or statewide importance within the 
vicinity of the PSEG Site. The areas that could be affected by causeway development are 
identified using soil information (types and slopes) specified as prime by the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Prime farmland of statewide importance is located in uplands east of the PSEG Site. In contrast, 
farmlands of "unique” importance correspond to lands within the coastal wetlands and may relate 
to the historical use of some of these areas for salt hay farming. As illustrated in Figure 2-8, 
upland areas east of the PSEG Site have also been designated by Salem County as “Farm 
Project Area 3.” However, no specific tracts having restrictions as preserved farmlands have 
been identified within 6 mi of the PSEG Site (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

There are no accessible highways, major airports, or railroads within 6 mi of the PSEG Site. In 
relation to the PSEG Site, Delaware Route 9 is located 3 mi to the west and Delaware Routes 1 
and 13 are located over 5 mi to the west. New Jersey Route 49 is located 7.5 mi to the 
northeast, and Interstate 295 and the Delaware Memorial Bridge are 15 mi to the north 
(Figure 2-9). Philadelphia International Airport, the closest major airport, is located 30 mi to the 
northeast. New Castle County Airport in Delaware is a small regional airport located south of 
Wilmington that offers a small number of commercial operations. The closest railroad is a 
Southern Railroad Company of New Jersey rail line located 8 mi to the northeast (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280). 

2.2.2 Offsite Areas 

This section describes land use along the existing transmission line corridors from the PSEG 
Site (Section 2.2.2.1), the existing access road corridor for the PSEG Site (Section 2.2.2.2), and 
the proposed access road (i.e., causeway) corridor for the PSEG Site (Section 2.2.2.3). 

2.2.2 .7 Existing Transmission Lines 

There are two 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines to the HCGS switchyard from offsite and one 
500-kV tie line from HCGS to the SGS switchyard. One of the existing offsite lines is a tie to the 
Red Lion Substation, located northwest in New Castle County, Delaware, and the other is a tie 
to the New Freedom Substation, located northeast in Camden County, New Jersey (PSEG 
2015-TN4280). 

There are also two existing 500-kV transmission lines to the SGS switchyard from offsite and 
one 500-kV tie line from SGS to the HCGS switchyard. Both offsite lines are ties to the New 
Freedom Substation in Camden County, New Jersey (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

The transmission corridor ROWs on these existing lines range from 200 to 350 ft wide. The 
three corridors cross Camden, Gloucester, and Salem counties in New Jersey and New Castle 
County in Delaware; they are about 102 mi in total length (one of the corridors is shared by two 
transmission lines). The transmission line to New Castle County crosses the Delaware River 
north of the PSEG Site (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 


November 2015 


2-15 


NUREG-2168 





Affected Environment 



Ulwiiftri 0 'y.l 

• 

S4* Ba/tfry 
A<VK«nt Of «4» Vtm 
&-«»*• (S 7 imj Sm«U tf 

f armur*3 J 


Prirrv# f arrrx.a#v3 

M Piw tarmord 
M 7 jrmuryj o< rpfwrtjrx# 

M fartr*ar*s <* iraju* ro«*jrc* 

M M frr» SjrwiorTJ 



Figure 2-8. Farmland Resources in the Vicinity of the PSEG Site (Source: Modified from 
PSEG 2015-TN4280) 


NUREG-2168 


2-16 


November 2015 


















Affected Environment 



Pniladeiph a 




(Timor* 


CWa*ar9 Bay 


WM«ooa / 
HortTi W **»oud 
Capettr>/ 


Figure 2-9. Major Transportation Features in the PSEG Site Region (Source: Modified 
from PSEG 2015-TN4280) 


November 2015 


2-17 


NUREG-2168 






















Affected Environment 


The three transmission line corridors are shown on Figure 2-10 and contain the following lines 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

• Hope Creek-New Freedom: extends northeast from HCGS for 43 mi in a 350-ft-wide 
corridor to the New Freedom Substation north of Williamstown, New Jersey. This line 
generally shares the corridor with the Salem-New Freedom line. In 2008, a new substation 
(Orchard) was installed along this line, dividing it into two segments. 

• Salem-New Freedom: extends northeast from SGS for 50 mi in a 350-ft-wide corridor to the 
New Freedom Substation. This line generally shares the corridor with the HCGS-New 
Freedom line. 

• Hope Creek-Red Lion: extends north from HCGS for 13 mi, then continues west over the 
Delaware River approximately 4 mi to the Red Lion Substation in Delaware. One-third of 
the 17-mi corridor is 350 ft wide and the remainder is 200 ft wide. 

• Salem-New Freedom South: extends northeast from SGS for 42 mi in a variable width 
corridor (generally 350 ft wide) to the New Freedom Substation. 

PSEG has developed a description of existing land uses along these transmission lines based 
on an analysis of USGS LULC data (PSEG 2015-TN4280). PSEG used a 500-ft-wide corridor 
centered on the existing ROWs to characterize baseline land uses along the existing corridors. 
Three major land uses were identified (i.e., agriculture, forests, and wetlands) that collectively 
account for most of the 6,920 ac within the three corridor ROWs. Table 2-3 presents the 
acreage for each of 13 land uses along the existing transmission line corridors. Agriculture 
(pasture hay and cultivated crops) represents 39 percent of the total ROW area, while forests 
(deciduous, evergreen, and mixed), and wetlands (woody and emergent herbaceous) represent 
30 and 23 percent, respectively. Developed land (2 percent), open water (3 percent), and 
barren land (2 percent) account for the remaining land use (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

2.2.2.2 Existing A ccess Road 

The existing access road to the PSEG property extends from the property through coastal 
wetlands in an easterly and east-northeasterly direction for 3.6 mi, where it connects to Alloway 
Creek Neck Road, an existing secondary road (Figure 2-7). Alloway Creek Neck Road 
continues through uplands to the town of Hancock’s Bridge (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

2.2.2.3 Proposed Access Road 

PSEG has stated that additional access road capacity is necessary to address future 
transportation needs for the PSEG Site (PSEG 2015-TN4280). To provide this additional 
access road capacity, PSEG has designed a three-lane causeway that would be constructed on 
elevated structures for its entire length through the coastal wetlands. The proposed causeway 
would extend about 5.0 mi northeast from the PSEG Site along or adjacent to the existing Hope 
Creek-Red Lion transmission corridor ROW to the intersection of Money Island Road and 
Mason Point Road (Figure 2-7). PSEG’s conceptual design for the causeway specifies a 
200-ft-wide ROW in upland areas at the northern and southern termini and a 48-ft-wide 
structure for the elevated portions of the causeway within lowland areas (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 


NUREG-2168 


2-18 


November 2015 






Affected Environment 



Figure 2-10. Existing PSEG Transmission Corridors (Source: Modified from PSEG 2015- 
TN4280) 


November 2015 


2-19 


NUREG-2168 










Affected Environment 


Table 2-3. Land Use in the Existing PSEG Transmission Line Corridors and in the 
Existing PSEG Access Road Right-of-Way 


U.S. Geoloqical Survey Land- 

Existing Transmission 
Corridors 

Existing 

Access Road 

Use Designation 

Area (ac) 

Percent 

Area (ac) 

Percent 

Open Water 

206 

3.0 

4 

1.0 

Developed-Open Space 

99 

1.4 

18 

4.7 

Developed-Low Intensity 

91 

1.3 

25 

6.6 

Developed-Medium Intensity 

34 

0.5 

6 

1.6 

Developed-High Intensity 

20 

0.3 

1 

0.3 

Barren Land 

124 

1.8 

39 

10.3 

Deciduous Forest 

1,843 

26.6 

6 

1.6 

Evergreen Forest 

233 

3.4 



Mixed Forest 

24 

0.4 



Pasture Hay 

591 

8.5 

17 

4.5 

Cultivated Crops 

2,091 

30.2 

117 

30.9 

Woody Wetlands 

1,029 

14.9 

15 

3.9 

Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 

535 

7.7 

131 

34.6 

Totals 

6,920 

100.0 

379 

100.0 

Note: The transmission line and access road corridor area of analysis is 500 ft. The specific 
corridors and ROWs are less than this width. 

Source PSEG 2015-TN4280 


Existing land uses along the proposed causeway alignment are shown in Figure 2-4 and 
summarized as part of the vicinity in Table 2-2. NJDEP LULC data for the 69-ac area that 
would be affected by causeway construction indicate that Phragmites -dominated coastal and 
interior wetlands combined represent 41.4 percent, freshwater tidal marshes make up 
18.4 percent, and cropland and pastureland represent 15.8 percent. Other minor LULCs along 
the causeway route include water, developed lands, and forest/old fields (PSEG 2012-TN2282). 

The proposed causeway would permanently affect an additional 25.2 ac of offsite wetlands, the 
impacts of which would be minimized by using an elevated design. The wetland types that 
would be impacted by the causeway include 11.2 ac of Phragmites -dominated coastal wetlands, 
6.1 ac of freshwater tidal marshes, 4.4 ac of Phragmites -dominated interior wetlands, 1.2 ac of 
herbaceous wetlands, 1.1 ac of wetlands ROW, 0.9 ac of agricultural wetlands (modified), 

0.2 ac of former agricultural wetlands, and 0.1 ac of mixed scrub/shrub wetlands. The 
causeway would also permanently affect 2.4 ac of tidal rivers, inland bays, and other tidal 
waters (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

The proposed causeway would cross NJDEP’s Mad Horse Creek WMA, NJDEP’s Abbotts 
Meadow WMA, and lands that are part of PSEG’s Alloway Creek Watershed Wetland 
Restoration (ACW) Site, which is part of PSEG’s Estuary Enhancement Program (EEP), as 
shown in Figure 2-11 (PSEG 2012-TN2282). These three properties have different ownership 
and deed impediments, including some parcels that are under a Deed of Conservation 
Restriction (DCR), as discussed in Section 4.1. 


NUREG-2168 


2-20 


November 2015 











Affected Environment 


2.2.3 The Region 

The region surrounding the PSEG Site is defined as the area within a 50-mi radius of the new 
plant centerpoint. A 50-mi radius is used to define the region because almost all of the impacts 
of building and operating a new nuclear power plant would be confined to that area. The region 
includes all or parts of 25 counties in four states (i.e., three in Delaware, seven in Maryland, 
seven in New Jersey, and eight in Pennsylvania), as shown in Figure 2-12. The region is within 
the Coastal Lowlands, Middle Coastal Plain, and Inner Coastal Plain subregions of the Mid- 
Atlantic Coastal Plain. Section 2.2.1 describes characteristics of the Coastal Lowlands. The 
Middle Coastal Plain is the other major subregion near the PSEG Site, and it is characterized by 
variable drainage, abundant forests, low topographic elevations, and low to moderate relief. 

Land uses in the Middle Coastal Plain include forest (38 to 60 percent), agriculture 
(27 to 39 percent), wetlands (9 to 21 percent), urban (3 to 7 percent), and barren land 
(1 to 2 percent). Similarly, land uses in the Inner Coast Plain include forest (46 to 59 percent), 
agriculture (23 to 28 percent), urban (10 to 16 percent), wetlands (6 to 7 percent), and barren 
land (2 to 3 percent) (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Figure 2-12 delineates the areas within Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania 
that are included within the region and depicts the distribution of LULC. USGS LULC data 
indicate that four major land uses (agriculture, forests, open water, and developed lands) 
account for 89 percent of the total area (5,024,234 ac) within the region. Table 2-2 presents the 
acreage for each of 13 land uses within the region. Agricultural uses represent 37 percent of 
the total region area, while forests (deciduous, evergreen, and mixed) account for 24 percent. 
Open water (principally the Delaware Bay, Delaware River, and Chesapeake Bay) accounts for 
16 percent of the regional area, and developed lands (open space and low-to-high intensity) 
represent 13 percent. Wetlands (10 percent) and barren land account for the remaining land 
use (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

As shown in Figure 2-9, major highways in the region include Interstates 76, 95, 276, 295, 476, 
495, and 676. Other principal roadways include New Jersey Route 55, the New Jersey 
Turnpike, the Garden State Parkway, and the Atlantic City Expressway. The Delaware Bay, 
Delaware River, Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, and Chesapeake Bay represent the major 
waterways within the region. Major rail lines or rail systems include those owned by Conrail, 
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, Port Authority Transit Corporation, and 
Southern Railroad of New Jersey (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 


November 2015 


2-21 


NUREG-2168 







Affected Environment 



Abbotts Meadow WMA 


PSEG EEP Lands 


Mad Horse Creek WMA 


0 0.5 1 


Legend 

-Proposed Causeway 

t Deed of Conservation Restriction PSEG EEP Land 


ABBOTTS MEADOW WMA 
MAD HORSE CREEK WMA 


1.5 2 

mmmmim Miles 


Data Source NJDEP Geographic Information System Clearinghouse 


Figure 2-11. Land Management Areas along the Proposed Causeway Route (Source 
PSEG 2012-TN2282) 


NUREG-2168 


2-22 


November 2015 























Affected Environment 



LEGEND 

M Op*r torn 
C3 Dmicp 3 0vr Scot* 

M DmMM! laa r*rM, 

M Dm«v*o Mrtu* rlnl, 
•4 nmntf, 

M Eurw' Una 
M OoOjoui fwwi 


M E ny w r fflrw 
M hki«d fcrmt 

m 

m ci jn . m e ocp> 

C 3 Aooa, Aacon* 

M Engvt htnxau * a ej r o » 



Figure 2-12. Land Use in the PSEG Site Region (Source: Modified from PSEG 2015- 
TN4280) 


November 2015 


2-23 


NUREG-2168 
















Affected Environment 


2.3 Water 

This section describes the hydrological processes governing movement and distribution of water 
in the existing environment at the PSEG Site. Water use and monitoring at the PSEG Site are 
also described. Surface water is used as a cooling fluid for the SGS and HCGS units at the 
PSEG Site, and would be used for a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site. Groundwater 
is used for SGS and HCGS operations, and additional groundwater withdrawals would be 
needed for a new plant at the PSEG Site. The following description is limited to only those parts 
of the hydrosphere that may affect, or be affected by, building and operating a new nuclear 
power plant at the PSEG Site. 

2.3.1 Hydrology 

This section describes the site-specific and regional hydrological features of the existing 
environment that could be altered by building or operating a new nuclear power plant at the 
PSEG Site. A description of the site’s hydrological features is presented in Section 2.3.1 of the 
PSEG ER (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The hydrological features of the site related to site safety 
(e.g., probable maximum flood) are described in the PSEG Site Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) 
(PSEG 2015-TN4283). 

A new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site would withdraw most of the water needed during 
building and operations from the Delaware River using a new intake structure and would 
discharge the blowdown from the circulating water system (CWS) cooling towers to the river 
using a discharge pipe. A new causeway would also be built from the PSEG Site toward the 
northeast and would cross existing water bodies. Development of a new plant would result in 
building in floodplains on the PSEG Site. Therefore, the environment described in this section 
includes the following: 

• the Delaware River because it would be the source of water withdrawn for building and 
operating a new nuclear power plant and would be the receiving water body of effluent 
discharge; 

• the coastal streams near the PSEG Site because they may be affected by building a new 
power plant; 

• the local surface-water features on and adjacent to the site that may receive stormwater 
runoff; 

• the 100-year floodplains near the PSEG Site because some building would occur inside the 
existing 100-year floodplain; 

• the coastal area along the proposed causeway route because some building activity would 
occur within this area; 

• the Delaware River Estuary because conditions in the estuary affect the Delaware River 
near the PSEG Site; 

• the Chesapeake and Delaware (C&D) Canal that connects the Chesapeake Bay with the 
Delaware River because the bidirectional flow in the canal can affect water levels near the 
PSEG Site; and 


NUREG-2168 


2-24 


November 2015 


Affected Environment 


• the local and regional groundwater systems because they are the source of freshwater 
needed during building and operation of a new plant. 

2.3. 7.7 Surface- Water Hydrology 

The PSEG Site is located on the eastern bank of the Delaware River at Delaware RM 52 
(Figure 2-13). The existing SGS and HCGS are located on Artificial Island between Delaware 
RM 51 and 52. Artificial Island was created by the USACE’s deposition of Delaware River 
dredged material behind a natural sandbar and bulkhead. The Delaware River is about 2.5 mi 
wide near the PSEG Site. 

Numerous streams near the PSEG Site flow into the Delaware River from both the New Jersey 
and the Delaware sides (PSEG 2015-TN4280). St. Georges Creek, Augustine Creek, Silver Run, 
Appoquinimink River, and Blackbird Creek flow into the Delaware River from the Delaware side at 
approximately Delaware RM 56.5, 53.5, 52.5, 51, and 50.5, respectively. Mill Creek, Alloway 
Creek, Hope Creek, Fishing Creek, and Mad Horse Creek flow into the Delaware River from the 
New Jersey side at about Delaware RM 56.5, 54, 48.5, 47.5, and 45, respectively. 

Figure 2-14 shows the water bodies (i.e., lakes, streams, marsh creeks, and drainage channels) 
on and immediately adjacent to the PSEG Site. Tidal wetland channels that start on the eastern 
side of the PSEG Site and the Artificial Island CDF flow toward the east and northeast into 
Fishing Creek. Starting east of the north end of the Artificial Island, Fishing Creek flows north 
into the Delaware River at a point south of where Alloway Creek flows into the river. The small 
artificial lakes located on Artificial Island are shallow, perched water bodies, isolated from 
underlying groundwater (PSEG 2015-TN4280). These artificial lakes are used for the disposal of 
dredged material and are referred to as desilt basins in this EIS (see Table 2-1). 

The Delaware River near the PSEG Site is tidally influenced; therefore, the water surface 
elevations generated by large storm-surge events are generally higher than those produced by 
riverine floods in the Delaware River. Near the PSEG Site, the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA) prepares flood risk maps and has determined the 1 percent 
annual exceedance flood water surface elevation from extreme storm surge events. The area 
inundated by the 1 percent annual exceedance flood water surface elevation is commonly 
known as the 100-year floodplain. The 1 percent annual exceedance flood water surface 
elevation at the confluence of the Delaware River and Alloway Creek is 8.9 ft National Geodetic 
Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29) (FEMA 1982-TN3214). Near the PSEG Site, the NAVD88 is 
about 0.84 ft above the NGVD29. Therefore, the 1 percent annual exceedance flood water 
surface elevation at the confluence of the Delaware River and Alloway Creek is 8.1 ft NAVD88. 

Because the 100-year floodplain near the PSEG Site is controlled by storm surges, the 
contiguous floodplain is vast, consisting of the low-lying coastal areas. The applicant estimated 
that the area of the 100-year floodplain within a 6-mi radius of the PSEG Site is 59,681 ac 
(93.5 mi 2 ) (PSEG 2012-TN2244). 


November 2015 


2-25 


NUREG-2168 






Affected Environment 


Watersheds 
of the 
Delaware 
River 
Basin 


upper region 

Enrt W«4 Brondi Wo1#rihed* 
Lacinwawn 

I'b»*a!flk-Mocgou 0 Wot*r»h*d> 


CENTRAL REGION 

Upp*r C*"ifro Wc**rii'#d* 
Lorw»r C*frtro : WirfB-'iSixii 
L*K^i Yd by 


LOWER REGION 

ScHvylldH Volby 

Uppf Lrtuory Wot*-*h»di 

Low*' Estuary Wart*mK«di 


MY REGION 

Ddawar* Bay Wart»rih*<is 


♦ PSEG Site 

N 

A 


0 10 TO 

mtmmm - 1 

M- ■ i 







Figure 2-13. The Delaware River Watershed (Source: Modified from DRBC 2004-TN3276) 


NUREG-2168 


2-26 


November 2015 


























Affected Environment 



Figure 2-14. Streams on and near the PSEG Site Identified Using the High-Resolution 
USGS National Hydrography Dataset (Source: USGS 2014-TN3280) 

The Delaware River Basin 

Most of the Delaware River Basin is located within the States of New York, New Jersey, 
Pennsylvania, and Delaware. A small portion of the northeastern corner of Maryland is also 
within the basin. The Delaware River Basin is approximately 13,600 mi 2 in area, including the 
approximately 800-mi 2 area of the Delaware Bay, and receives approximately 45 in. of annual 
precipitation (DRBC 2008-TN2277). 

The East Branch Delaware River originates near Roxbury, New York, and flows generally west (see 
Figure 2-13). The West Branch Delaware River originates near Stamford, New York, and also 
flows generally west. The East and the West Branches meet to form the Delaware River below 
Hancock, New York. From this point, the Delaware River flows generally to the south, forming the 
borders between the States of New York and Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and 
New Jersey and Delaware. The Delaware River expands into the Delaware Bay and discharges 
into the Atlantic Ocean near Cape Henlopen, Delaware, and Cape May, New Jersey. The 
Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) uses a river mileage system for location and 
identification along the Delaware River and Bay (DRBC 2011-TN2412). Mile zero in the river 
mileage system (Delaware RM 0) is located at the mouth of the Delaware Bay on the intersection of 
the navigation channel with a line between Capes Henlopen and May. The head of the Delaware 
River is at Delaware RM 330.7 at the confluence of East and West Branches near Hancock, New 
York. 


November 2015 


2-27 


NUREG-2168 




Affected Environment 


Parameters measured daily in the Delaware River by USGS at the stream gages near the 
PSEG Site are shown in Table 2-4. Discharge is measured only at the Trenton and Lambertville 
gages. The Trenton gage has a relatively long period of discharge measurements (since 1912 
and continuing), but the Lambertville gage has only a 9-year record. Gage heights are 
measured at several other locations. 

The annual discharge of the Delaware River for the period of record at Trenton is shown in 
Table 2-5. The annual discharge at Trenton varies from 4,708 to 22,040 cfs with a long-term 
mean of 12,004 cfs. The maximum annual discharge occurred in water year 2011. The next 
four largest annual discharges—19,810, 18,190, 18,020, and 17,540 cfs—occurred in water 
years 1928, 2004, 1952, and 1973, respectively. The maximum instantaneous peak discharge 
measured at Trenton was 329,000 cfs on August 20, 1955 (USGS 2013-TN2405). 

Table 2-4. Parameters Measured Daily at U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Stream Gages 
in the Delaware River near the PSEG Site 


Site Name (USGS Gage Number) Location Parameter 


Delaware River at Reedy Island Jetty, DE 

39°30'3" N 

Specific Conductivity 

(01482800) 

75°34'7" W 

(1963-10-03 to 2012-08-29) 
pH 

(1970-02-11 to 2012-08-29) 

Water Temperature 
(1970-02-11 to 2012-08-29) 

Dissolved Oxygen 
(1970-02-11 to 2012-08-29) 

Turbidity 

(2009-04-18 to 2011-12-18) 

Delaware River at New Castle, DE 

39°39'24.5" N 

Gage Height 

(01482170) 

75°33'43.2" W 

(2012-04-05 to 2012-04-26) 

Delaware River at Delaware Memorial Bridge 

39°41'21" N 

Water Temperature 

at Wilmington DE 

75°31'19"W 

(1956-10-01 to 1981-03-18) 

(01482100) 

Delaware River Below Christina River at 

39°43'00.0" N 

Gage Height 

Wilmington, DE 

75°31 '59.6" W 

(2005-10-01 to 2008-06-23) 

(01481602) 

Delaware River at Chester, PA 

39°50'33" N 

Specific Conductivity 

(01477050) 

75°21'28" W 

(1963-10-01 to 2012-08-29) 
pH 

(1068-01-18 to 2012-08-29) 

Water Temperature 
(1961-12-21 to 2012-08-29) 

Dissolved Oxygen 
(1961-12-27 to 2012-08-29) 

Delaware River at Paulsboro, NJ 

39°50'42" N 

Gage Height 

(01475200) 

75°16'09" W 

(1986-12-20 to 1988-01-11) 


NUREG-2168 


2-28 


November 2015 




Affected Environment 


Site Name (USGS Gage Number) 


Delaware River at Fort Mifflin at 
Philadelphia, PA 
(01474703) 


Delaware River at Trenton, NJ 
(0146350) 


Table 2-4. (continued) 


Location 

39°52'45" N 
75°12'11" W 


39°57'14" N 
75°08’16" W 


40°01’05" N 
75°02’ 16" W 

40°01'57" N 
74°59'46" W 

40°04'55" N 
74°51'58" W 


40° 11'21" N 
74°45'21" W 


40°13'18" N 
74°46'41" W 


Parameter 

Specific Conductivity 
(1970-07-14 to 2010-11-04) 

Water Temperature 
(1972-06-16 to 2010-11-04) 

Specific Conductivity 
(1963-11-08 to 2012-08-29) 
pH 

(1967-10-01 to 2012-08-29) 

Water Temperature 
(1960-11-10 to 2012-08-29) 

Dissolved Oxygen 
(1961-10-03 to 2012-08-29) 

Turbidity 

(2008-09-10 to 2011-12-12) 
Gage Height 

(1986-10-01 to 1991-10-24) 
Gage Height 

(1990-05-28 to 1991-11-17) 

Specific Conductivity 
(1968-10-02 to 1980-11-26) 
pH 

(1968-08-20 to 1980-11-26) 

Water Temperature 
(1955-10-02 to 1980-11-26) 

Dissolved Oxygen 
(1962-10-02 to 1980-11-26) 

Specific Conductivity 
(1972-10-02 to 1976-06-30) 

Water Temperature 
(1972-10-02 to 1976-06-30) 

Discharge 

(1912-10-01 to 2012-08-29) 

Specific Conductivity (NJ side) 
(1968-06-25 to 1995-09-30) 
Specific Conductivity (PA side) 
(1995-10-01 to 2012-08-29) 

pH (NJ side) 

(1968-06-25 to 1995-09-30) 
pH (PA side) 

(1995-10-01 to 2012-08-29) 

Water Temperature (NJ side) 
(1953-10-01 to 1995-09-30) 
Water Temperature (PA side) 
(1995-10-01 to 2012-08-29) 


Delaware R at Ben Franklin Bridge at 

Philadelphia, PA 

(01467200) 


Delaware River at Palmyra, NJ 
(01467060) 

Delaware River at Torresdale Intake at 

Philadelphia, PA 

(01467030) 

Delaware River at Bristol, PA 
(01464600) 


Delaware River at Marine Terminal at 

Trenton, NJ 

(01464040) 


2-29 


NUREG-2168 


November 2015 





Affected Environment 


Table 2-4. (continued) 

Site Name (USGS Gage Number) _ Location _ Parameter _ 

Dissolved Oxygen (NJ side) 
(1962-01-02 to 1995-09-10) 
Dissolved Oxygen (PA side) 
(1995-10-01 to 2012-08-29) 

Dissolved Oxygen percent 
saturation (PA side) 
(2001-10-01 to 2012-08-29) 

Suspended Sediment Concentration 
(1949-09-01 to 1982-03-31) 

Suspended Sediment Discharge 
(1949-09-01 to 1982-03-31) 

Turbidity YSI6026 (PA side) 
(1999-11-02 to 2004-05-30) 

Turbidity YSI6136 (PA side) 
(2004-06-01 to 2012-08-29) 

Specific Conductivity 
(2009-05-14 to 2009-10-07) 
pH 

(2009-05-14 to 2009-10-07) 

Water Temperature 
(2009-05-14 to 2009-10-07) 

Dissolved Oxygen 
(2009-05-14 to 2009-10-07) 

Gage Height 

(2010-10-19 to 2012-08-29) 
Discharge 

(1897-10-01 to 1906-09-30) 
Gage Height 

(2008-10-02 to 2012-08-29) 


Figure 2-15 shows the annual discharge in the Delaware River at Trenton. The Delaware River 
Basin experienced the most severe drought during 1961 to 1967 with a mean annual flow of 
7,888 cfs at Trenton, approximately 66 percent of long-term mean annual discharge. At 
Trenton, the annual discharge in the Delaware River fell below the long-term mean annual 
discharge in 1961 and stayed below 75 percent of the long-term mean until 1968. In 1972, the 
annual discharge exceeded the long term mean for the first time since 1960. During this 
extended drought period, the annual discharge at Trenton also reached its historical minimum in 
1965, when it fell below 50 percent of the long-term mean annual discharge. Other multiyear 
periods when the annual discharge at Trenton was below the long-term mean annual discharge 
include 1914 to 1915, 1917 to 1919, 1921 to 1926, 1929 to 1932, 1940 to 1942, 1949 to 1950, 
1980 to 1982, 1987 to 1989, and 1991 to 1992. The annual discharge fell below 75 percent of 
the long-term mean during 1921 to 1926, 1929 to 1932, and 1980 to 1982. 


Delaware River near Morrisville, PA 
(01463450) 


40°13'28" N 
74°47'20" W 


Delaware River at Washington Crossing, NJ 
(01462500) 

Delaware River at Lambertville, NJ 
(01462000) 


40°17'42" N 
74°52'05" W 

40°21'53" N 
74°56'56" W 


NUREG-2168 


2-30 


November 2015 







Affected Environment 


Table 2-5. Annual Discharge in the Delaware River at Trenton, New Jersey 


Water Year 

Discharge 

(cfs) 

Water Year 

Discharge 

(cfs) 

Water Year 

Discharge 

(cfs) 

1913 

12,420 

1946 

13,420 

1979 

13,770 

1914 

11,590 

1947 

13,620 

1980 

10,550 

1915 

10,260 

1948 

12,940 

1981 

7,414 

1916 

12,630 

1949 

10,970 

1982 

10,230 

1917 

10,420 

1950 

11,160 

1983 

12,650 

1918 

10,210 

1951 

14,770 

1984 

15,740 

1919 

10,910 

1952 

18,020 

1985 

6,365 

1920 

13,220 

1953 

14,380 

1986 

13,230 

1921 

11,850 

1954 

9,051 

1987 

11,820 

1922 

11,680 

1955 

11,150 

1988 

9,802 

1923 

7,956 

1956 

14,570 

1989 

10,510 

1924 

11,070 

1957 

8,957 

1990 

12,600 

1925 

9,705 

1958 

12,480 

1991 

10,760 

1926 

10,090 

1959 

9,248 

1992 

8,305 

1927 

13,160 

1960 

14,230 

1993 

12,550 

1928 

19,810 

1961 

10,780 

1994 

14,180 

1929 

10,150 

1962 

8,004 

1995 

8,542 

1930 

9,591 

1963 

7,883 

1996 

15,730 

1931 

7,826 

1964 

8,175 

1997 

14,680 

1932 

7,926 

1965 

4,708 

1998 

12,810 

1933 

14,860 

1966 

6,277 

1999 

7,749 

1934 

10,150 

1967 

9,386 

2000 

12,340 

1935 

12,140 

1968 

10,480 

2001 

9,069 

1936 

14,590 

1969 

9,788 

2002 

7,127 

1937 

12,390 

1970 

10,610 

2003 

17,110 

1938 

14,010 

1971 

11,780 

2004 

18,190 

1939 

12,660 

1972 

15,540 

2005 

15,470 

1940 

11,820 

1973 

17,540 

2006 

16,880 

1941 

9,184 

1974 

14,020 

2007 

14,230 

1942 

10,770 

1975 

15,260 

2008 

15,010 

1943 

14,790 

1976 

13,530 

2009 

13,510 

1944 

9,119 

1977 

12,010 

2010 

12,400 

1945 

14,760 

1978 

16,560 

2011 

22,040 


November 2015 


2-31 


NUREG-2168 





Affected Environment 



Figure 2-15. Annual Discharge at the Trenton USGS Streamflow Gage 

An analysis of the monthly Delaware River discharge at the Trenton USGS streamflow gage for 
1913 to 2011 water years shows that low flows occur in late summer through fall with a late fall 
peak in December (Figure 2-16). Discharge reduces with the onset of winter before reaching 
the annual peak in March or April. In late spring through summer, discharge in the Delaware 
River gradually reduces, reaching annual lows from July through October. The maximum 
monthly discharge of 60,840 cfs occurred in March 1936, and the minimum monthly discharge 
of 1,548 cfs occurred in July 1965. 

The mainstem Delaware River does not have any reservoirs (DRBC 2008-TN2277). However, 
there are 24 reservoirs on its tributaries of which nine are water supply reservoirs, two are 
hydropower reservoirs, three are flood control reservoirs, one is solely used for flow 
augmentation, and the remaining nine are dual or multipurpose reservoirs used for water 
supply, flow augmentation, and/or flood control (DRBC 2008-TN2277). According to the 
USACE National Inventory of Dams (USACE 2013-TN2407), there are more than 1,000 dams in 
the Delaware River Basin; 19 of these have normal storages exceeding 10,000 ac-ft as listed in 
Table 2-6). 


NUREG-2168 


2-32 


November 2015 


























Affected Environment 


*t5 

<D 

O) 

CD 

-C 

o 

c/> 

O 

> 


c 

o 



Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 

Figure 2-16. Characteristics of the Monthly Discharge During Water Years 1913-2011 at 
the Trenton USGS Streamflow Gage 


Table 2-6. Reservoirs in the Delaware River Basin with Storages Exceeding 10,000 ac-ft 


Name 

Owner or Operator 

Purpose 

Stream or 

River 

Normal (and 
Maximum) 
Storage (ac-ft) 

Beltzville 

USACE 

Flood Control, 

Pohopoco 

41,220 



Water Supply, 

Creek 

(103,625) 



Recreation 



Blue Marsh 

USACE 

Flood Control, 

Tulpehocken 

22,897 



Recreation, 

Creek 

(129,900) 



Water Supply 



Cannonsville 

New York City Department 

Water Supply 

West Branch 

300,999 


of Environmental Protection 


Delaware River 

(450,000) 

Greenlane 

(Private) 

Water Supply, 

Perkiomen 

13,430 



Recreation 

Creek 

(25,114) 

Lake 

New Jersey Division of 

Flood Control 

Muscontcong 

48,209 

Hopatcong 

Parks and Forestry 


River 

(48,209) 

Merrill Creek 

Merrill Creek Owner’s 

Flow 

Merrill Creek 

46,000 


Group 

Augmentation 


(46,000) 

Neversink 

New York City Department 

Water Supply 

Neversink River 

108,872 


of Environmental Protection 



(142,000) 

Nocamixon 

Pennsylvania Department 

Recreation 

Tohickon Creek 

40,000 


of Environmental Protection 



(71,000) 

November 2015 

2-33 


NUREG-2168 

















Affected Environment 


Table 2-6. (continued) 


Name 

Owner or Operator 

Purpose 

Stream or 
River 

Normal (and 
Maximum) 
Storage (ac-ft) 

Penn Forest 

Pennsylvania Department 
of Environmental Protection 

Water Supply 

Wild Creek 

20,000 

(27,600) 

Pepacton 

New York City Department 
of Environmental Protection 

Water Supply 

East Branch 
Delaware River 

420,280 

(609,740) 

Rio 

(Utility) 

Hydroelectric, 

Recreation 

Mongaup River 

15,037 

(19,500) 

Shohola 

Marsh 

Pennsylvania Department 
of Environmental Protection 

Recreation 

Shohola Creek 

12,610 

(26,450) 

Springton 

(Private) 

Water Supply 

Crum Creek 

10,740 

(13,600) 

Swinging 

Bridge 

(Utility) 

Hydroelectric, 

Recreation 

Mongaup River 

31,848 

(67,500) 

Tafton Dike 

(Utility) 

Hydroelectric, 

Recreation 

Lackawaxen 

River 

132,000 

(270,000) 

Toronto 

(Utility) 

Hydroelectric 

Mongaup River 

25,211 

(26,500) 

Union Lake 

New Jersey Department of 
Environmental Protection 

Recreation 

Maurice River 

11,600 

(20,100) 

Wallenpaupac 

(Utility) 

Hydroelectric, 

Lackawaxen 

132,000 

k 


Recreation 

River 

(270,000) 

Wild Creek 

Pennsylvania Department 
of Environmental Protection 

Water Supply 

Wild Creek 

12,583 

(17,143) 


The Delaware River Estuary 

The Delaware River Estuary extends approximately 134 mi from the mouth of the Delaware Bay 
upstream to Trenton, New Jersey, the farthest point of tidal influence (Cook et al. 2007- 
TN2983). The maximum width of the Delaware River Estuary is about 28 mi, and its mean 
depth is about 26 ft (Garvine et al. 1992-TN2989). The Delaware River Estuary is weakly 
stratified with a typical salinity variation of only 1 practical salinity unit (1) because the tidal flux is 
large, exceeding 220 times the freshwater discharge from Delaware River (Garvine et al. 1992- 
TN2989). 

The first mention of dredging using man-powered treadmills and disposal in the Delaware River 
Estuary dates back to 1784 and 1803, respectively, and the first mechanical, steam-powered 
dredging is described as occurring in 1804 (Snyder and Guss 1974-TN2280). In the early 19th 
century, depths of 12 to 27 ft were adequate in the Delaware River Estuary. In 1853, to improve 
navigation, it was proposed to employ a combination of dredging and diking the stream banks 
with spoils dumped behind stone-filled timber dikes (Snyder and Guss 1974-TN2280). After the 


(1) The term practical salinity unit is used to express quantities on the practical salinity scale which was 
defined in 1978 as the dimensionless ratio of the electrical conductivity of a sample of water to that of 
a standard potassium chloride solution. Another way to express salinity is the ratio of weight of 
dissolved salts to the weight of the water as parts-per-thousand or ppt. There is a small numeric 
difference between salinities of the same water expressed using the two methods. 


NUREG-2168 


2-34 


November 2015 







Affected Environment 


Civil War and reorganization of the USACE in 1866, the great expansion of maritime traffic for 
the Philadelphia port and the advent of international shipping lanes into the Delaware River and 
Bay prompted the need for a permanent shipping channel and its continued maintenance 
(Snyder and Guss 1974-TN2280). During this time, a depth of 27 ft at low water was 
considered adequate for the shipping channel. Numerous bars, shoals, and flats interrupted the 
navigable reaches. In 1879, the first rock removal occurred at Schooner Ledge. The Rivers 
and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 USC 403 et seq. -TN660) authorized a survey for creation of a 30- 
ft-deep channel from Philadelphia to Delaware Bay. Baker and Stony Point shoals were 
enclosed by bulkheads to create Artificial Island, the principal disposal site for the Lower 
Delaware, when excavation began for a 30-ft-deep channel in 1900 (Snyder and Guss 1974- 
TN2280). The shipping channel from the Delaware Bay to the Philadelphia Navy Yard was 
deepened to 40 ft by dredging conducted from December 1940 to February 1942 (Snyder and 
Guss 1974-TN2280). 

The USACE is currently deepening the existing shipping channel to a depth of 45 ft mean lower 
low water (USACE 2011-TN2262). Proposed channel side slope is 3 horizontal to 1 vertical. 

The channel width will be the same as the existing channel width, which is 400 ft in Philadelphia 
harbor, 800 ft from Philadelphia Navy Yard to Bombay Hook, and 1,000 ft from Bombay Hook to 
the mouth of Delaware Bay (USACE 2011-TN2262). Approximately 16 million yd 3 of material 
will be dredged and placed in USACE CDFs and for beneficial uses within the Delaware Bay 
(USACE 2011-TN2262). 

The Delaware River Estuary and the upper Chesapeake Bay are connected via the C&D canal, 
which is approximately 14 mi long, 450 ft wide, and 35 ft deep (USACE 1997-TN2281). Joining 
the waters of the Chesapeake Bay and the Delaware River Estuary—an idea envisioned as far 
back as the 17th century—greatly shortens the 300-mi trip around the coast of Delaware and 
Maryland (USACE 2012-TN2408). The Chesapeake and Delaware Canal Company built the 
original canal, which was only 66 ft wide and 10 ft deep, from 1824 to 1829 (USACE 2012- 
TN2408). The Federal Government purchased the canal in 1919. The canal was expanded to a 
width of 90 ft and a depth of 12 ft and was converted to operate at sea-level. Another expansion 
during 1933 to 1938 resulted in a 250-ft-wide and 27-ft-deep canal. A final expansion of the canal 
during the 1960s and 1970s resulted in its present-day size (USACE 2012-TN2408). Because of 
fluctuations in tides and circulations, the flow in the C&D canal can be in either direction. The 
Delaware River Estuary end of the C&D canal is at Delaware RM 59. The C&D canal carries 
40 percent of the shipping traffic into and out of the Port of Baltimore (USACE 2012-TN2408). 

Tides in the Delaware River Estuary are semidiurnal. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) maintains several tide gages in the Delaware River and Bay area. At 
the mouth of the Delaware Bay, NOAA has two tide gages at Lewes, Delaware, and at Cape 
May, New Jersey. The mean tidal ranges at these stations are 4.1 and 4.9 ft, respectively 
(NOAA 2014-TN2411). The mean tidal range at the Trenton Marine Terminal, New Jersey, 
NOAA tide gage is 8.2 ft (NOAA 2014-TN2411). The funnel shape of the estuary and the 
presence of the shipping channel result in amplification of the tidal range at Trenton, New 
Jersey (DiLorenzo et al. 1993-TN2979). 


November 2015 


2-35 


NUREG-2168 


Affected Environment 


2.3.1.2 Groundwater Hydrology 

The geology of the PSEG Site and the surrounding region is described in detail in SSAR 
Section 2.5 (PSEG 2015-TN4283). The PSEG Site is located in the Coastal Plain 
physiographic province, a region between the Atlantic Ocean and the Fall Line characterized by 
generally low topographic relief and underlain by semi-consolidated to unconsolidated 
sediments consisting of clays, silts, sands, and some gravel (Trapp and Horn 1997-TN1865). 
The Fall Line is a low east-facing cliff, generally parallel to the Atlantic coastline, extending from 
New Jersey to the Carolinas. It separates the Mesozoic and Tertiary Coastal Plain sediments 
from the harder Paleozoic metamorphic rocks of the Piedmont physiographic province to the 
west. The PSEG Site is approximately 18 mi south of the Fall Line. 

Regional Groundwater Description 

Regional groundwater hydrology is described in ER Section 2.3.1.2 (PSEG 2015-TN4280) and 
SSAR Section 2.4.12 (PSEG 2015-TN4283). The hydrogeologic description provided in these 
documents is consistent with the regional description provided in Segment 11 of the Ground 
Water Atlas of the United States (Trapp and Horn 1997-TN1865). The PSEG Site is located 
within the New Jersey Coastal Plain aquifer system, part of the Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain 
aquifer system. The New Jersey Coastal Plain aquifer system consists of a wedge-shaped 
mass of unconsolidated sediments of clay, silt, sand, and gravel. The wedge is 6,000 ft thick in 
Cape May County and thins northwestward to the Fall Line. 

The hydrogeologic units within the New Jersey Coastal Plain are described by the USGS as 
southeast dipping permeable fine-grained to coarse-grained materials separated by less 
permeable fine-grained materials, resulting in a multiple aquifer system (Zapecza 1989-TN2994; 
Martin 1998-TN2259). The overlying unconsolidated units reflect the topography of the 
underlying bedrock and show a corresponding southeasterly dip of 10 to 60 feet per mile (ft/mi) 
(Spitz and dePaul 2008-TN2998). In general, the aquifers are thicker near the ocean and thin 
progressively toward the northwest and closer to the western borders of New Jersey. In some 
instances, aquifers may thin out entirely. The major aquifers within the New Jersey Coastal 
Plain aquifer system, listed from deepest to shallowest, are the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy (PRM) 
aquifer system, Englishtown aquifer, Wenonah-Mount Laurel aquifer, Vincentown aquifer, 

Piney Point aquifer, Atlantic City 800-ft sand, and the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer system 
(Martin 1998-TN2259). Figure 2-17 illustrates the occurrence of these aquifers in the southern 
New Jersey Coastal Plain and a generalized depiction of groundwater flow in the region. 

Regionally, aquifer recharge primarily occurs from precipitation where the aquifer units outcrop. 
Additional recharge occurs from adjacent aquifers through leaky confining units. In some areas, 
aquifers may receive induced recharge from the Delaware River. Using a combination of 
regional studies and model calibration, average recharge rates for the New Jersey Coastal Plain 
aquifer system were estimated by the USGS to range from 6 to 20 in./yr (Voronin 2003- 
TN2947), with the lower part of this range applicable nearest the PSEG Site. Modeling studies 
presented in the SSAR used recharge values of 0.15 to 8 in./yr for the PSEG Site (PSEG 2015- 
TN4283). 


NUREG-2168 


2-36 


November 2015 


Affected Environment 



DISTANCE. IN MILES 


Figure 2-17. Cross-Section Through the Southern New Jersey Coastal Plain Aquifer 
System (Source: dePaul et al. 2009-TN2948) 


Prior to significant pumping, groundwater flow in the New Jersey Coastal Plain aquifers 
generally discharged to the lower reach of the Delaware River, to the Delaware and Raritan 
Bays, and to the Atlantic Ocean (Martin 1998-TN2259). Large-scale groundwater withdrawals 
in the 1900s reduced the heads throughout the aquifer system. The groundwater head in the 
middle PRM aquifer was 6 ft NGVD29 in 1946 at a well located about 10 mi north of the PSEG 
Site (USGS 2015-TN4188). Dames and Moore (1988-TN3311) estimated groundwater heads 
to be -5 to -6 ft NGVD29 in the middle PRM aquifer in the vicinity of the PSEG Site prior to the 
initiation of pumping for HCGS/SGS. This is consistent with a measured head of -4 ft recorded 
in 1969 by the USGS for a well located on Artificial Island and screened in the undifferentiated 
PRM aquifer (middle/lower PRM aquifers) (USGS 2013-TN2999). 


Aquifer pumping has had a significant impact on groundwater heads and groundwater flow 
patterns, impacting the availability of surface and groundwater supplies and increasing the 
potential for degradation of groundwater quality through saltwater intrusion (dePaul et al. 2009- 
TN2948). New Jersey has designated two Water Supply Critical Areas in the New Jersey 
Coastal Plain in response to long-term declines in groundwater levels where groundwater is a 
primary water supply (Spitz and dePaul 2008-TN2998). Critical Area 2 is the closest to the 
PSEG Site and extends into the easternmost portion of Salem County. Withdrawals from the 
PRM aquifer system are restricted in Water Supply Critical Area 2. In response to these 
restrictions, some withdrawals in Critical Area 2 were shifted to the Wenonah-Mount Laurel 
aquifer, resulting in groundwater head reductions in that aquifer (Spitz and dePaul 2008- 
TN2998). The PSEG Site is approximately 25 mi southwest of Critical Area 2 and is not subject 
to groundwater withdrawal restrictions except as defined in applicable permits. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that the New Jersey Coastal 
Plain aquifer system is a sole source aquifer (53 FR 23791-TN2987). This decision was based 


November 2015 


2-37 


NUREG-2168 









Affected Environment 


in part on findings that 75 percent of drinking water needs in the area were derived from 
groundwater and that the various aquifers respond as an interrelated aquifer system. 

Onsite Groundwater Description 

To characterize the local hydrogeology, existing data from the PSEG Site were combined with 
results from 16 geotechnical boreholes and 16 observation well pairs completed for the ESP 
application. Figure 2-18 shows a stratigraphic section for the PSEG Site based on the 
geotechnical borings. Geologic formations identified at the site correspond to the layered 
aquifer-confining unit structure described in the regional description provided above. The Piney 
Point aquifer and Atlantic City 800-ft sand are not present at the site. The description of the PRM 
aquifer system in SSAR Section 2.4.12 (PSEG 2015-TN4283) differs from the regional description 
(e.g., in dePaul et al. 2009-TN2948). The SSAR describes the Raritan Formation as part of the 
Potomac Formation, and identifies the Upper Raritan aquifer as the upper PRM aquifer at the 
PSEG Site. This is inconsistent with USGS descriptions and with the description in Dames and 
Moore 1988 (Dames and Moore 1988-TN3311), which associate the Upper Raritan aquifer with 
the middle PRM aquifer. This EIS follows the USGS description of the aquifers. The deepest 
geotechnical borings at the site penetrated the upper part of the Potomac Formation (to depths of 
about 600 ft, as shown in Figure 2-18). The wells supplying the majority of water to HCGS and 
SGS are screened in the middle PRM aquifer at depths of about 800 ft (PSEG 2015-TN4283). 

The surface sediments at the PSEG Site consist of artificial fill from previous construction 
activities and hydraulic fill from channel dredging of the Delaware River. Plant foundations 
would be constructed on the sediments of the Vincentown formation (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 
Elevations of the top of the units and average thicknesses are given in Table 2-7. 

The sediments overlying the Vincentown Formation encountered during the geotechnical 
investigation at the PSEG Site were identified in the ER and SSAR as the Kirkwood Formation, 
and were subdivided into upper and lower units based on variations in lithology (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280; PSEG 2015-TN4283). The upper unit was described as an aquitard and stated to 
consist primarily of clay and silt with isolated interbeds of silty and clayey fine- to 
medium-grained sand (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The lower unit was described as being in 
hydraulic communication with the Vincentown Formation and stated to consist of silty and 
clayey fine- to medium-grained sand and fine to coarse gravel (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The 
identification of the sediments overlying the Vincentown Formation on Artificial Island as the 
Kirkwood Formation differs from the description of these sediments in recent USGS and New 
Jersey Geological Survey publications. These publications indicate that the Kirkwood 
Formation was eroded from the PSEG Site during the Pleistocene and identify the sediments 
overlying the Vincentown Formation at Artificial Island as belonging to the Cape May Formation, 
subdivided into three units (Owens & Minard 1979-TN4189; Stanford 2011-TN4192). According 
to New Jersey bedrock and surficial geology maps, the Kirkwood Formation occurs east of 
Artificial Island (Owens et al. 1998-TN4190; Newell et al. 2000-TN4191). The lithologic 
description in the ER of the Kirkwood sediments is substantially consistent with the description 
of the Cape May Formation sediments found in Stanford (2011-TN4192). This EIS refers to the 
sediments overlying the Vincentown Formation as the Cape May Formation, but retains a 
parenthetical reference to the Kirkwood Formation because of its use in the ER and SSAR. 


NUREG-2168 


2-38 


November 2015 




Affected Environment 



nnnn 

in 


J LJ LJ LJ SS 


W'l 1 
1*11* I *'I 

Ljljlj 


ri n 


*i i ‘ 
.j u 


LJ LJ 


! * [Xi’i <|!r; 

J LJ LJ LJ 19 LJ I 


(88 QAVN) u| UOIJEA 3|3 


November 2015 


2-39 


NUREG-2168 


Figure 2-18. Hydrogeologic Units at the PSEG Site from ER Figure 2.3-23. Recent studies indicate that the Kirkwood 
Formation has been eroded from the site and identify the sediments above the Vincentown Formation as 
belonging to the Cape May Formation (Owens and Minard 1979-TN4189; Owens et al. 1999-TN4190; Stanford 
2011-TN4192) (Figure Source: PSEG 2015-TN4280) 












































Affected Environment 


Table 2-7. Approximate Top Elevation and Thickness for Hydrogeologic Units at the 

Northern Portion of the PSEG Site (summary of ER Section 2.6.2 [PSEG 2015- 
TN4280]) 


Unit 

Top 

Elevation 
(ft NAVD88) 

Thickness 

(ft) 

Comment 

Artificial and 

5 to 15 

24 to 44 

Ground surface; fill material from dredge spoils 

Hydraulic Fill 




Alluvium 

-22 to -35 

5 to 24 

Formerly bed of Delaware River 

Cape May 

-34 to -43 

12 to 29 

Upper sediments are less permeable 

(identified in 




the ER as 




Kirkwood) 




Vincentown 

-33 to -55 

35 to 79 

Water-bearing zone for shallow groundwater transport 

Hornerstown (a) 

-105 to-114 

20 

Generally an aquitard 

Navesink 

-121 to-133 

24 

Aquitard 

Mount Laurel 

-145 to-157 

103 

Potable aquifer 

Wenonah 

-250 to -259 

15 

Potable aquifer 

Marshalltown 

-265 to -277 

25 

Aquitard 

Englishtown 

-291 

44 to 49 

Potable aquifer 

Woodbury 

-336 

33 

Aquitard 

Merchantville 

-372 

30 to 36 

Aquitard 

Magothy 

-402 

52 to 55 

Potable aquifer 

Potomac 

-454 

>200 

Primary source of potable water for PSEG Site 


(a) The Hornerstown Formation is identifiable by its high glauconite content (Owens et al. 1999-TN4190) and 
appears to be misidentified as the Navesink Formation in the PSEG SSAR (Appendix 2AA, Boring Logs 
[PSEG 2015-TN4283]). Borehole gamma logs shown in Stanford (2011-TN4192) correlate well with gamma 
logs from the PSEG Site shown in SSAR Figures 2.5.4.1-11 to 2.5.4.1-14 and suggest that the top of the 
Hornerstown, Navesink, and Mount Laurel Formations are about 25 ft deeper than given here and in ER 
Section 2.6.2 (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 


At the PSEG Site, the upper Cape May sediments (identified in the ER as Kirkwood sediments) 
were described as a low-permeability unit separating the water-bearing alluvium from the more 
permeable lower Cape May sediments and the Vincentown aquifer (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Cape May Formation sediments are depicted as continuous across Artificial Island, thinning to 
the east where they overlie the Kirkwood Formation (Stanford 2011-TN4192). However, the 
upper surface of the Vincentown forms an erosional unconformity, and the alluvium was found 
to directly overlie the Vincentown aquifer in one of the geotechnical boreholes at the PSEG Site 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

According to ER Table 2.3-12 (PSEG 2015-TN4280), the 16 observation well pairs installed at 
the PSEG Site were completed with the deeper well accessing the Vincentown aquifer. 

Thirteen of the upper wells were installed in the alluvium, two were installed in the hydraulic fill, 
and one upper well was installed at the upper boundary of the Vincentown aquifer due to the 
absence of the alluvium at that location. 

PSEG provided time series plots of measured groundwater heads and contour plots of 
interpolated groundwater heads. Groundwater heads in the two wells installed in the hydraulic 


NUREG-2168 


2-40 


November 2015 








Affected Environment 


fill were higher than the surrounding wells installed in the alluvium, indicating that the 
groundwater in the fill is likely perched water and not in direct hydraulic contact with the 
groundwater in the alluvium. Changes over time in the monthly head values were generally less 
than 2 ft during the 12-month measurement period. There was no clear seasonal variation in 
heads. High frequency head measurements in two wells located near the Delaware River 
showed that groundwater head in the Vincentown aquifer was strongly influenced by the tide. 
Tidal influence was weaker in the alluvium and appeared to decrease rapidly in both 
hydrogeologic units with increasing distance from the river. 

Average horizontal hydraulic gradients were reported in ER Table 2.3-15 and were generally 
less than 0.001 ft/ft (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Vertical gradients based on average head values in 
the well pairs were reported in ER Table 2.3-16 (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The majority of these 
gradients indicated downward flow from the alluvium to the Vincentown aquifer. Where it is 
present, the low permeability of the intervening upper Cape May unit (identified in the ER as the 
upper Kirkwood) limits vertical flow between the two units. 

Groundwater head contour maps presented in the ER show that groundwater in the alluvium 
and the Vincentown aquifer generally flows toward the Delaware River. For the September 
2009 sampling period, the observation wells located on the HCGS and SGS were included in 
the set of groundwater head data for the alluvium. The head contours show a slight 
groundwater mound over the HCGS site, with groundwater flowing outward, generally toward 
the Delaware River, but also toward the marsh to the northeast of the PSEG Site. 

Site-specific groundwater heads in the deeper aquifers at Artificial Island were not reported in 
the ER; however, heads, pumping rates, and salinity data for SGS and HCGS wells were 
obtained from NJDEP and evaluated by the review team (NJDEP 2013-TN3223). Regionally, 
groundwater heads in the deeper aquifers are influenced by the large regional pumping centers 
in Camden, Gloucester, and Salem Counties, New Jersey, and in New Castle County, Delaware 
(dePaul et al. 2009-TN2948; dePaul and Rosman 2015-TN4193). At the PSEG Site, 
groundwater heads in the middle and lower PRM aquifers appear to be affected by the New 
Castle County withdrawals (Plates 8 and 9, dePaul et al. 2009-TN2948). In addition, there is a 
local depression of groundwater head in the middle PRM aquifer associated with HCGS and 
SGS groundwater use for operations (dePaul and Rosman 2015-TN4193). The head measured 
in USGS observation well 33-934 (site observation Well J) at the south end of Artificial Island 
was -75 ft in 2008, a drawdown of about 55 ft below the apparent regional groundwater head. 
Head measured in this well varied from -47 to -88 ft NAVD88 during 2003 to 2013, with an 
average value of -70 ft NAVD88 during this period (NJDEP 2013-TN3223). Heads in other site 
observation wells in the middle PRM and lower PRM aquifers also varied over a range of about 
40 ft during this period in response to site pumping (NJDEP 2013-TN3223). 

The horizontal extent of drawdown in the middle PRM aquifer from groundwater pumping for 
HCGS and SGS is underestimated in dePaul et al. (2009-TN2948) and in dePaul and 
Rosman (2015-TN4193) because well 33-918, shown in Plate 8 of these reports, was 
mistakenly included in the middle PRM aquifer instead of in the lower PRM aquifer where it is 
actually completed. Prior 5-year synoptic reports show a greater extent of drawdown due to the 
HCGS and SGS groundwater pumping, with groundwater elevations of -40 ft extending 3 to 


November 2015 


2-41 


NUREG-2168 




Affected Environment 


4 mi from HCGS/SGS (Lacombe and Rosman 2001-TN4194; Lacombe and Rosman 1997- 
TN4195; Rosman et al. 1995-TN4196; Eckel and Walker 1986-TN4197; Walker 1983-TN4198). 

Aquifer Material Properties 

PSEG evaluated saturated hydraulic conductivity by completing a slug test in eight of the 
observations well pairs on the northern portion of the site (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Average 
hydraulic conductivity values, reported in ER Table 2.3-17 (PSEG 2015-TN4280), were about 
3.8 ft/d in the alluvium and the Vincentown aquifer. A value of 0.2 ft/d was reported for the 
single well installed in the hydraulic fill. A summary of hydraulic properties based on regional 
data was provided in SSAR Table 2.4.12-1 for all of the hydrogeologic units identified at the site 
(PSEG 2015-TN4283). 

Groundwater Pathways 

A new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site would be situated in an area of low topographic 
relief adjacent to the Delaware River, with plant excavation extending into the Vincentown 
aquifer. Horizontal hydraulic gradients are small in the Vincentown aquifer and in the alluvium. 
Tidal influence on groundwater heads is prominent near the Delaware River, but the general 
groundwater flow is toward the river. There is a component of groundwater flow in the alluvium 
that is directed to the northeast, with likely discharge to the marsh. This marsh drains to the 
Delaware River via Fishing Creek to the north of the PSEG Site. Average groundwater 
velocities reported in the ER were 2.9 ft/yr (in the northern portion of the site) and 12.9 ft/yr (in 
the eastern portion) for the alluvium, and 3.3 ft/yr (in the northern portion of the site) and 1.7 ft/yr 
(in the eastern portion) for the Vincentown aquifer (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Alternative 
groundwater pathways for an accidental release of liquid radioactive effluents are discussed in 
SSAR 2.4.13 (PSEG 2015-TN4283). The staffs evaluation of groundwater pathways and 
radionuclide transport will be documented in the safety evaluation report (SER) (NRC 2015- 
TN4156). 

2.3.2 Water Use 

This subsection describes surface-water and groundwater uses that could affect or be affected 
by the construction and operation of a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site. Descriptions 
of the types of consumptive and nonconsumptive water uses, identification of their locations, 
and quantification of water withdrawals and returns are included in ER Section 2.3 (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280). Water use, for the purposes of this subsection, is broadly defined, encompassing 
human water supply needs for drinking and domestic uses, industrial uses, and agricultural 
uses. It also includes instream uses that do not involve water diversion such as navigation, 
recreation, and aquatic habitat needs based on water quality. 

2.3.2 .7 Surface- Water Use 

Water Use near the PSEG Site 

The waters of the Delaware River Estuary near the PSEG Site, at approximately Delaware 
RM 52, are brackish, with salinity varying seasonally from 4 to 20 parts per thousand (ppt) 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). Major consumptive water uses in the vicinity of the PSEG Site are those 


NUREG-2168 


2-42 


November 2015 



Affected Environment 


for HCGS and SGS. HCGS employs a closed-cycle cooling system. The average HCGS 
withdrawal from the Delaware River is 67 Mgd. SGS uses a once-through circulating water 
system. The SGS intake flow is limited to a 30-day average of 3,024 Mgd. Because SGS uses 
a once-through cooling system, almost all of the withdrawn water is returned to the Delaware 
River (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Water Use in the Delaware River Basin 

As decreed by the United States Supreme Court in 1954, the City of New York has rights to 
withdraw 800 Mgd of water from the Delaware River Basin via three city-owned headwater 
reservoirs: Neversink, Pepacton, and Cannonsville (USGS 2004-TN2406). The Neversink, 
Pepacton, and Cannonsville reservoirs were completed in 1954, 1955, and 1964, respectively 
(NYCDEP 2013-TN2409). As part of the decree and agreement among the States of New York, 
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware, the three reservoirs are required to release sufficient 
water to maintain flow objectives of 1,750 and 3,000 cfs at Montague and Trenton, New Jersey, 
respectively. An out-of-basin, 100 Mgd water supply to central and northeastern New Jersey is 
also permitted (USGS 2004-TN2406). One purpose of the 3000 cfs target flow at Trenton, New 
Jersey, is to maintain the salt line at Delaware RM 98, downstream of public water supply 
intakes (DRBC 2008-TN2277). The salt line in the tidal Delaware River is a location where the 
seven-day average chloride concentration equals 250 ppm (DRBC 2008-TN2277). 

Within the Delaware River Basin, over 8,736 Mgd of water, including surface and groundwater, 
are used, including an average of 736 Mgd exported to New York City and northeastern New 
Jersey (DRBC 2008-TN2277). Almost 90 percent of water withdrawn is supplied from surface 
water (DRBC 2008-TN2277). Within the basin, 65 percent of water is used for thermoelectric 
power generation, 10 percent is used for public water supply, 7 percent is used for hydroelectric 
power generation, and 6 percent is used for industrial purposes (DRBC 2008-TN2277). 

Surface water accounts for 64 percent of potable water supply, and groundwater accounts for 
the remaining 36 percent (DRBC 2008-TN2277). Ninety percent of the commercial and 
residential potable water is supplied by public water supply systems, while private domestic 
wells account for the remaining 10 percent (DRBC 2008-TN2277). 

The DRBC was created in 1961 through signing of the Delaware River Basin Compact among 
the Federal Government and the four basin States of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and 
Delaware (DRBC 2004-TN2278). The DRBC is responsible for protecting water quality, 
allocating and permitting water supply, conserving water resources, managing drought, reducing 
flood losses, and developing recreation in the basin (DRBC 2012-TN2279). A resolution by the 
governors of the four basin states in 1999 directed the development of a comprehensive water 
resources plan for the Delaware River Basin (DRBC 2004-TN2278). This goal-based plan was 
developed around five key areas: to manage the quantity and quality of the basin’s waters for 
sustainable use; to manage waterways to reduce flood losses, improve recreation, and protect, 
conserve, and restore riparian and aquatic ecosystems; to integrate water resources 
management into land-use planning and growth management; to strengthen partnership among 
stakeholders; and to provide stewardship for protection, improvement, and restoration of water 
resources (DRBC 2004-TN2278). The plan defines a set of objectives to achieve the stated 
goals (DRBC 2004-TN2278). 


November 2015 


2-43 


NUREG-2168 


Affected Environment 


2.3.2.2 Groundwater Use 

The New Jersey Coastal Plain is a major source of groundwater for the southern half of New 
Jersey and is the primary source for public water systems in Salem, Gloucester, and 
Cumberland counties. A detailed description of the major water users in this region was 
supplied in the ER (PSEG 2015-TN4280), including a list of groundwater users within a 25-mi 
radius of the PSEG Site that are permitted for withdrawal of more than 100,000 gpd (PSEG 
2015-TN4280). Across the Delaware River in New Castle County, Delaware, about one-quarter 
of the public water is obtained from a groundwater supply (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The 
Wenonah-Mount Laurel and PRM aquifer systems are the principal sources of potable water in 
the southern region of New Jersey and in New Castle County, Delaware (dePaul et al. 2009- 
TN2948). 

The locations of public water supply wells in New Jersey and wellhead protection areas in New 
Jersey and Delaware within a 25-mi radius of the PSEG Site are reported in ER Figure 2.3-20 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). Water withdrawal rates and well depth information are provided for 
public water supply wells that do not fall within wellhead protection areas. This information is 
not available for wells located in a wellhead protection area (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

PSEG stated that “there are no offsite public water supply wells or private wells within 2 mi of 
the PSEG Site” (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The nearest groundwater-use location shown on ER 
Figure 2.3-20 is a wellhead protection area approximately 3.0 mi from the PSEG Site, across 
the Delaware River in New Castle County, Delaware. The nearest groundwater-use location in 
Salem County that is shown on ER Figure 2.3-20 is a public water supply well approximately 
5.0 mi from the PSEG Site. The nearest domestic residences in Salem County are located on 
Alloway Creek Neck Road approximately 3.0 mi from the PSEG Site. 

Groundwater is the only source of freshwater at the PSEG Site, and PSEG has authorization 
from NJDEP (NJDEP 2012-TN3222) and DRBC for consumptive use of up to 

43.2 million gallons of groundwater per month (but no more than 300 million gal/yr) to support 
the combined operations at HCGS and SGS. There is a maximum diversion rate of 2,900 gpm 
for these two plants. The groundwater is used for potable, industrial process makeup, fire 
protection, and sanitary purposes. 

Past rates of groundwater use at HCGS and SGS were obtained from the ER and from NJDEP 
records (PSEG 2015-TN4280; NJDEP 2013-TN3223). HCGS derives groundwater from two 
wells installed to depths of 816 ft in the middle PRM aquifer (referred to in the ER as the Upper 
Raritan Formation of the PRM aquifer) (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The average combined pumping 
rate from these wells was 148 gpm for the period 2002 to 2012. SGS derives groundwater 
primarily from two wells installed to depths of 840 and 1,135 ft in the middle and lower PRM 
aquifers (referred to in the ER as the Upper and Middle Raritan Formations of the PRM aquifer). 
Average pumping rates between 2002 and 2012 were 206 and 31 gpm from the middle and 
lower PRM aquifers, respectively. SGS also has two wells installed in the Wenonah-Mount 
Laurel aquifer. These wells are classified as standby wells, and only a negligible amount of 
water was pumped from these wells during 2002 to 2012. 


NUREG-2168 


2-44 


November 2015 



Affected Environment 


2.3.3 Water Quality 

The following sections describe the quality of surface-water and groundwater resources in the 
vicinity of the PSEG Site. 

2.3.3 .7 Surface - Water Quality 

Water Quality Near the PSEG Site 

The water quality of the Delaware River near the PSEG Site is influenced by tidal action, 
wind-induced circulation, and freshwater discharges primarily from the Delaware River. 
Maximum turbidity within the Delaware River Estuary occurs near the location of the PSEG Site 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). DRBC water-quality requirements (18 CFR Part 410-TN3235), as well 
as requirements specified in New Jersey Administrative Code 7:9B-1.14 (NJAC 7:9B-TN4286), 
apply to the Delaware River near the PSEG Site. 

PSEG collected quarterly surface-water-quality samples at 11 locations in the Delaware River, 
the desilt basins at the PSEG Site, and Hope and Alloway Creeks (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Figure 2-19 shows these surface-water-quality sampling locations. The Delaware River 
sampling location is AS-08. The applicant analyzed the surface-water samples for suspended 
solids, total dissolved solids, hardness, biochemical oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand, 
phosphorus, various forms of nitrogen, alkalinity, chlorides, inorganics (i.e., calcium, sodium, 
potassium, magnesium, lead, mercury, and zinc), coliform, and phytoplankton (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280). 

PSEG also measured temperature, dissolved oxygen, salinity, color, turbidity, pH, and specific 
conductivity in the field at the surface-water-quality sampling locations and analyzed the 
samples for tritium (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

PSEG sampled three locations quarterly in the desilt basins present on the proposed PSEG Site 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). Salinity ranged from 1 to 2 ppt with a mean of 1.1 ppt, fecal coliform 
ranged from 1 to 90 colonies per 100 mL, pH was between 5.9 and 8.1 with a mean of 7.3, and 
turbidity ranged from 10.1 to 712 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) with a mean of about 124 
NTU. All sampled inorganics except mercury were present. Tritium was detected in one 
sample, but the reported concentration was below the laboratory reporting limit. Tritium was not 
detected in subsequent samplings, and because the location is not along the migration pathway 
for HCGS or SGS, the applicant reported the single tritium detection as a false positive (PSEG 
2015-TN4280). Analytical results for the desilt basins water-quality samples were summarized 
in ER Table 2.3-26 (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 


November 2015 


2-45 


NUREG-2168 






Affected Environment 



Jfc-n<* '««tn >rnr 
ruwr *«U> ' 


AS-02 - 


AS-03 


-- 

: ' " A ' ‘ 

I* 


AS-04 


AS-05 


AS-06 


AS-09 


.V 1 ** o\ t 

**■• V 




M4D HU*M _K* f K M*i« 
* Miami MAw:r»in.T^r4 


LEGEND 


IE k 
- 

Surface Water Quality 

■S 3 

Federal/State Owned Land 

■ 

Sediment 

□ 

Site Boundary 


N 



E 


S 


0 0 5 1 



Kilometers 


0 0.5 



Miles 


Figure 2-19. Surface-Water-Quality Sampling Locations on and Near the PSEG Site 
(Source: PSEG 2015-TN4280) 


NUREG-2168 


2-46 


November 2015 

























Affected Environment 


The Delaware River and Estuary 

The salt line (defined as a chloride concentration of 250 mg/L) is an important indicator to 
ensure that public water supplies would not be affected by the presence of brackish water. The 
salt line moves in response to the tides and variations in Delaware River freshwater discharge. 
During most of the year the salt line is located between the Commodore Barry Bridge at 
Delaware RM 82 and Reedy Island at Delaware RM 54 (DRBC 2008-TN2277). During the 
drought of record in the 1960s, the salt line moved to its most upstream historically observed 
location at Delaware RM 102 (DRBC 2014-TN3211). 

As of February 13, 2014, the salt line was approximately at the Delaware Memorial Bridge 
at RM 70. For comparison, the PSEG Site is at RM 54 in the tidal portion of the Delaware 
River, and average seawater chloride concentration at the PSEG Site is 35,000 mg/L. 

The PSEG SSAR reports a range in the chloride concentration in the Delaware estuary of 5,000 
to 15,000 mg/L depending on the season (PSEG 2015-TN4283). Chloride concentrations in the 
Delaware River vary widely during the course of a year. During wetter times of the year, such 
as late winter and early spring, the salt line is normally located farther downstream in the river. 

The five years between 1999 and 2003 contained a mix of wet periods (2000 and 2003) and dry 
periods (1999, 2001, and 2002). During this time, the salt line ranged from below RM 54 (the 
furthest downstream location the DRBC measures) to as high as RM 89. During the wettest 
years, the 250 mg/L chloride concentration stayed at or below the normal midmonth locations 
for most of the year. For example, in 2003, annual rainfall surpluses of more than 20 in. in 
some parts of the Delaware River Basin kept stream flows above normal for much of the year. 
As a result, chlorides in the river were kept so diluted that the salt line location was consistently 
below the normal location (sometimes by as much as 30 mi) from June through December 
(DRBC 2004-TN3209). 

Since 1996, every two years DRBC publishes a water-quality assessment report for the 
Delaware River and Bay (DRBC 2012-TN2279). The most recent of these reports was 
published in March 2012. These reports contain DRBC’s water-quality assessment consistent 
with Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1251 et seq. -TN662) and are used by the 
four basin states for consideration in preparation of their lists of water bodies per Section 303(d) 
of the Clean Water Act (DRBC 2012-TN2279). The DRBC water-quality standards require that 
all surface waters of the Delaware River Basin should be maintained for six uses: agricultural, 
industrial, and public water supplies after reasonable treatment except where natural salinity 
prevents such uses; use by wildlife, fish, and other aquatic life; recreation; navigation; waste 
assimilation such that other uses are still possible; and other uses that the DRBC’s 
comprehensive plan may specify (DRBC 2012-TN2279). 

The DRBC has divided the Delaware River and Bay into a total of 10 water-quality management 
zones: Zones 1A through 1E comprise the nontidal portion of the main stem Delaware River 
upstream of Trenton, New Jersey; Zones 2 through 5 are located in the tidal portion of the river 
downstream of Trenton, New Jersey; and Zone 6 is the Delaware Bay (DRBC 2012-TN2279). 
DRBC designates the use of Zones 1, 2, and 3 for “public water supplies after reasonable 
treatment.” The DRBC-designated uses for Zones 1A through 1E are aquatic life, public water 
supply, recreation, and fish consumption. The designated uses in Zones 2 through 5 are 


November 2015 


2-47 


NUREG-2168 



Affected Environment 


aquatic life, recreation, and fish consumption. In Zones 2 and 3, DRBC additionally specifies 
permissible levels of specific toxics to support drinking water and fish consumption. The 
designated uses for Zone 6 are aquatic life, recreation, and fish and shellfish consumption 
(DRBC 2012-TN2279). The PSEG Site is located in Zone 5, which extends from Delaware RM 
48.2 to 78.8. 

In the 2012 water-quality assessment report, the DRBC lists Zone 5 as not supporting aquatic 
life designated use (DRBC 2012-TN2279). For Zone 5, DRBC reported that 96 percent of the 
dissolved oxygen observations met daily mean criterion, and all of the observations met the 
seasonal mean criterion (DRBC 2012-TN2279). All of the pH observations in Zone 5 met the 
criterion for Zone 5; however, only 37 percent of the turbidity observations met the 
instantaneous maximum criterion, and none met the 30-day average criterion for turbidity 
(DRBC 2012-TN2279). DRBC states the turbidity conditions in Zone 5 may be related to the 
natural occurrence of the estuary turbidity maximum within the zone. In Zone 5, nearly 
99 percent of observations met the temperature criterion, and all of the observations met the 
alkalinity criterion. Zone 5 does not have a criterion for total dissolved solids. DRBC reported 
exceedances for copper and methyl mercury in Zone 5 (DRBC 2012-TN2279). The DRBC also 
reported that Zone 5 met all criteria for primary and secondary contact recreation and therefore 
supports recreation use (DRBC 2012-TN2279). The State of Delaware issued fish consumption 
advisories in Zone 5 due to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and mercury (DRBC 2012- 
TN2279). Overall, DRBC reported in its 2012 water-quality assessment report that Zone 5 did 
not support aquatic life and fish consumption but did support recreation (DRBC 2012-TN2279). 

PSEG performed quarterly surface-water-quality sampling in the Delaware River adjacent to the 
proposed site, as shown in Figure 2-19 (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Salinity ranged from 4 to 14 ppt 
with a mean of 8.2 ppt, fecal coliform ranged from 6 colonies per 100 mL to too numerous to 
count, pH was between 4.7 and 8.4 with a mean of 6.5, and turbidity ranged from 
39.5 to 381 NTU with a mean of 150 NTU. Tritium was not detected during the sampling period. 
Of the inorganics, mercury was not detected during the sampling period (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 
Delaware River sample analytical results were summarized in ER Table 2.3-25 (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280). 

Marsh Locations Near the PSEG Site 

PSEG performed quarterly surface-water-quality sampling at seven locations within tidal 
marshes on and near the PSEG Site. Salinity ranged from 1 to 9 ppt with a mean of 3.4 ppt, 
fecal coliform ranged from 1 colony per 100 mL to too numerous to count, pH ranged from 4.7 to 
8.6 with a mean of 6.8, and turbidity ranged from about 26 to 449 NTU with a mean of about 
117 NTU. Of the inorganics, mercury was not detected. Tritium was detected once near the 
southeastern edge of the PSEG Site, but the reported concentration was below the laboratory 
reporting limit, and because the location is not along the migration pathway for HCGS or SGS, 
the applicant reported the single tritium detection as a false positive (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 
Analytical results for the marsh water-quality samples were summarized in ER Table 2.3-26 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). 


NUREG-2168 


2-48 


November 2015 





Affected Environment 


Delaware River Sediment Near the PS EG Site 

PSEG obtained sediment samples from the Delaware River at eight locations near the PSEG 
Site (see Figure 2-19 for sample locations). However, these samples were only analyzed for 
particle size distribution. The review team examined the Delaware Estuary Regional Sediment 
Management Plan final report (DERSMPW 2013-TN4204) for information characterizing the 
quality of sediment in Delaware River Water Quality Zone 5. About 55 percent of the 231 
samples in Zone 5 were classified as probably or potentially suitable for aquatic habitat use. 
About 98 percent of the 231 samples were classified as suitable or probably suitable for upland 
beneficial use. The most prevalent contaminants of concern were arsenic, lead, mercury, and 
PCBs. Two samples in the regional database were from just offshore of Artificial Island, near 
the proposed plant intake structure area. These samples had lead and arsenic concentrations 
above the lower effects thresholds and were determined to be probably suitable for aquatic 
habitat use and suitable for upland beneficial use. 

2.3.3.2 Groundwa ter Quality 

Groundwater quality was measured quarterly during 2009 in the 16 observation well pairs 
installed in the hydraulic fill and the alluvium and Vincentown formations to support development 
of the ESP application. These shallow water-bearing zones are nonpotable due to their direct 
connection with the saline Delaware River and are most likely to be impacted by construction 
and surficial releases. Groundwater analytical results for the ESP application are summarized 
in ER Tables 2.3-28 to 2.3-31 for the alluvium and Vincentown aquifer samples (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280). Minimum, maximum, and mean measured values were reported for suspended 
solids, total dissolved solids, hardness as calcium carbonate (CaCOs), biochemical oxygen 
demand, chemical oxygen demand, phosphorus, nitrogen forms, alkalinity, chloride, selected 
inorganics (calcium, iron, sodium, potassium, magnesium, lead and mercury), coliform, carbon 
dioxide, silica tritium, temperature, dissolved oxygen, salinity, color, turbidity, pH, and specific 
conductance. The results of these analyses indicate the groundwater in these aquifers is saline 
and not potable. Chloride concentrations in the alluvium averaged 2,900 mg/L in the northern 
portion of the PSEG Site and 3,500 mg/L in the eastern portion of the site. Average chloride 
concentrations in the Vincentown aquifer were 4,500 mg/L (northern wells) and 5,600 mg/L 
(eastern wells). Since the New Jersey secondary drinking water standard (DWS) for chloride is 
250 mg/L, these wells are considered nonpotable. Tritium was detected in two alluvium water 
samples at concentrations of 340 and 710 pCi/L. These samples were from different wells and 
at different times, indicating the absence of a persistent or widespread tritium plume. The ER 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280) states that the positive tritium measurements were likely false positives 
because the values are very close to the laboratory detection limits. In addition, the EPA DWS 
for tritium is 20,000 pCi/L. 

In addition to the ESP application groundwater monitoring effort, PSEG maintains a Radiological 
Groundwater Protection Program (RGPP) and Tritium Remediation Monitoring Wells. These 
wells were installed for the RGPP at HCGS and SGS for tritium remediation monitoring at SGS. 
They are located in the shallow water-bearing strata and the Vincentown aquifer, consistent with 
the wells installed in conjunction with the ESP application effort. 


November 2015 


2-49 


NUREG-2168 



Affected Environment 


Tritium was discovered at concentrations above the EPA DWS (20,000 pCi/L) in the shallow 
groundwater near SGS Unit 1 in early 2003 and attributed to a release of water from the spent 
fuel pool. Groundwater extraction was begun in early 2005 to provide control of groundwater 
flow and to remove tritiated groundwater. More than 3 Ci of tritium have been removed by the 
system, and it is estimated that 0.1 to 1.0 Ci of tritium still remains in groundwater and dead end 
pore spaces (ARCADIS 2012-TN3310). The mass of tritium discharged from groundwater to 
the Delaware River was estimated to be 0.128 Ci during the first quarter of 2014 (ARCADIS 
2014-TN4207). The source of the release of tritium-contaminated water to the environment has 
been controlled by clearing and maintaining the SGS Unit 1 spent fuel pool telltale drains and by 
periodically draining the seismic gap between the SGS Unit 1 fuel handling and auxiliary 
buildings, where water from the spent fuel pool has migrated (ARCADIS 2014-TN4207). 

In general, since remediation pumping efforts began, the concentrations in wells installed inside 
and outside the Unit 1 cofferdam have declined, and most concentrations are at or below 50 
percent of the EPA DWS. Several wells remain above the DWS, and monitoring and extraction 
activities are continuing. One well near the reactor building (i.e., Well AC) remains at more than 
10 times the EPA DWS. Extracted groundwater is managed according to the current SGS NRC 
license (ARCADIS 2012-TN3310). 

In response to the tritium contamination of the shallow groundwater, a monitoring well was 
installed in the Vincentown aquifer at a location downgradient of the spent fuel pool release (i.e., 
Well AA-V). Elevated tritium concentrations were measured in Well AA-V. Between June 2013 
and March 2014 the tritium concentration in Well AA-V varied from 6,900 to 12,800 pCi/L 
(ARCADIS 2014-TN4207). 

In contrast to SGS Unit 1, SGS Unit 2 has not had a major subsurface release of tritium; 
however, SGS Unit 2 also has a tritium monitoring system of ten wells installed in response to 
detection of elevated tritium concentrations in a catch basin. Monitoring well concentrations 
around SGS Unit 2 increased during a high precipitation period from July to August 2011 but 
have since returned to their historical concentrations of less than 50 percent of the EPA DWS 
(ARCADIS 2012-TN3310; ARCADIS 2014-TN4207). 

The deeper aquifers, including the Wenonah-Mount Laurel and the PRM, are used as potable 
sources at the PSEG Site and are designated by EPA as sole source aquifers. These aquifers 
are hydraulically separated from the upper aquifers by a series of confining layers, so that the 
water quality in these aquifers is not likely to be impacted by activities limited to the depth of the 
Vincentown aquifer. However, saltwater intrusion in the deeper aquifers, which is influenced by 
large-scale groundwater pumping, is an ongoing concern (Cauller et al. 1999-TN2995). As 
reported in the ER (PSEG 2015-TN4280), chloride samples are routinely taken from the water 
withdrawn from the deeper aquifers as part of HCGS and SGS operation, with water-quality 
data reported to the NJDEP in accordance with Water Allocation Permit 120001. Quarterly 
chloride data reported to the NJDEP for the period 2003 to 2013 were reviewed and are plotted 
in Figure 2-20. With notable deviations, the chloride concentrations have been stable over time. 
Water from the lower PRM aquifer (PW-6) has a much higher chloride concentration but has 
generally been less than 250 mg/L. 


NUREG-2168 


2-50 


November 2015 



Affected Environment 


300 


250 


~ 200 

'm 

E_ 

150 

;o 

‘Z 

_o 

5 ioo 


50 


o 





1 1 * V / ■ \ 

7\i 


fvtyv V s ** 




r x - 






—♦— PW-5 





—PW-6 




1 1 A 

-Tint 


Mar-03 Mar-04 Mar-05 Mar-06 Mar-07 Mar-08 Mar-09 Mar-10 Mar-11 Mar-12 Mar-13 


Figure 2-20. Chloride Data for the HCGS and SGS Groundwater Production Wells 
for the Period 2003-2013 (Source: NJDEP 2013-TN3223) 


Actual concentrations at these wells were 10 to 60 percent less than those predicted by Run 4 
of the 1987 Dames and Moore modeling effort for the year 2007, after 20 years of pumping at 
over twice the average historic pumping rate (875 vs. 379 gpm) (Dames and Moore 1988- 
TN3311). An evaluation of the predicted impacts of increased pumping during construction and 
operation on salinity is contained in Sections 4.2 and 5.2, respectively. 

2.3.4 Water Monitoring 

PSEG was able to consider the existing SGS and HCGS monitoring programs as part of the 
pre-application monitoring program for the PSEG Site (PSEG 2015-TN4280). If a new 
nuclear power plant is built at the PSEG Site, many of these same monitoring activities would 
be continued, and additional monitoring near a new plant could be added (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280). 

PSEG performed surface-water-quality monitoring on and near the PSEG Site as described in 
Section 2.3.3.1. Monitoring of stream discharges and surface-water-quality assessments are 
performed by USGS as described in Section 2.3.1. DRBC performs extensive water-quality 
monitoring as part of its water-quality assessment reports as described in Section 2.3.3.1. 

PSEG installed 16 observation well pairs in late 2008 through January 2009 to support 
development of the PSEG Site. The new wells were installed on both the northern portion of the 
PSEG Site, where a new nuclear power plant would be located, and on the eastern portion of 
the PSEG Site, which may be used as support and/or laydown areas during construction. 
Groundwater heads were measured monthly during 2009 in the hydraulic fill, alluvium, and 
Vincentown aquifer, as described in Section 2.3.1.2. These data were used, in conjunction with 
existing data from the PSEG Site, to prepare groundwater potentiometric surface maps. 
Quarterly measurements of groundwater quality were made in 2009, as described in 
Section 2.3.3.2. Other than this quarterly monitoring event for the ESP application, PSEG 


November 2015 


2-51 


NUREG-2168 


















Affected Environment 


continues to monitor the tritium-impacted monitoring wells monthly (ARCADIS 2012-TN3310) 
and the water supply wells quarterly for chlorides (NJDEP 2012-TN3222). 

2.4 Ecology 

This section describes the terrestrial, aquatic, and wetland ecology of the PSEG Site and vicinity 
that could be affected by the building, operation, and maintenance of a new nuclear power 
plant. Most of the PSEG Site is located on the southern part of Artificial Island on the east bank 
of the Delaware River adjacent to the existing HCGS and SGS in Lower Alloways Creek 
Township, Salem County, New Jersey. This county is in southwestern New Jersey, within the 
Outer Coastal Plain subdivision of the Coastal Plain physiographic province. 

Section 2.4.1 provides a general description of the terrestrial environment, while Section 2.4.2 
provides a general description of the aquatic environments, on and in the vicinity of the PSEG 
Site, as well as the corridor for the proposed causeway. Detailed descriptions are provided 
where needed to support the analysis of potential environmental impacts from building, 
operating, and maintaining a new nuclear power plant and causeway. These descriptions also 
support the evaluation of mitigation activities and monitoring programs identified during the 
assessment to avoid, reduce, minimize, rectify, or compensate for potential impacts. 

2.4.1 Terrestrial and Wetland Ecology 

This section identifies terrestrial and wetland ecological resources and describes species 
composition and other structural and functional attributes of the biota that could be affected by 
building, operating, and maintaining a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site and the 
proposed causeway. It also identifies important terrestrial resources, such as wildlife 
sanctuaries and natural areas, that might be affected by the proposed action. 

The entire 819-ac PSEG Site is within the Outer Coastal Plain subdivision of the Coastal Plain 
physiographic province. The site is also within the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain of the eastern 
temperate forest ecoregion. This ecoregion is a flat plain, with many swampy or marshy areas 
(Ator et al. 2005-TN2745). Forest cover in the region is predominantly loblolly and shortleaf 
pine with patches of oak, gum, and cypress near major streams, as compared to the mainly 
longleaf and slash pine forests of the warmer Southern Coastal Plain (Wiken et al. 2011- 
TN2744). Specific ecological communities present in the Outer Coastal Plain in New Jersey 
include southern mixed oak forest, upland pine forest, upland oak forest, pine plains, red maple 
and sweet gum forest, Virginia pine successional forest, coastal white cedar forest, pitch pine 
lowland forest, hardwood swamp, pine barrens shrub swamp, emergent marsh, freshwater tidal 
marsh, pine barrens savannah, salt marsh, coastal dune grassland, coastal dune shrubland, 
coastal dune forest, and successional communities (CU 2010-TN2886). 

2.4. 7.7 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources—Site and Vicinity 

Existing Cover Types and Vegetation 

Baseline habitat conditions for the PSEG Site and vicinity were developed using historical 
studies and surveys in support of HCGS and SGS licensing and supplemental information 
provided by resource agencies and surveys conducted in 2009 to 2010. Floral surveys were 


NUREG-2168 


2-52 


November 2015 


Affected Environment 


conducted during the 2009 growing season on the PSEG Site to confirm the land cover types 
mapped by NJDEP. The floral surveys were completed along eight walking transects covering 
each vegetation cover type during the spring, summer, and fall to account for variations in 
growing seasons. The presence of each plant species was recorded along transects, and the 
relative abundance was classified (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Site 

Vegetation communities, also referred to as vegetation cover types, were identified from NJDEP 
LULC data for the PSEG Site and offsite areas that potentially would be affected by the 
proposed causeway (Figure 2-4 and Figure 2-5). Six vegetative cover types were identified: 
urban or built-up land, agricultural land, forest land, water, wetlands, barren land, and managed 
wetlands. Table 2-1 lists the area and percentage of the PSEG Site represented by each LULC 
type available within the PSEG Site boundary. The listed coverage types are common within 
the Outer Coastal Plain subdivision (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

PSEG conducted a field survey along eight walking transects during the 2009 growing season 
in each habitat represented on the PSEG Site, proposed causeway, and existing access road 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). Plant species and relative abundance were recorded along each 
transect. The six cover types are described in the following sections in order of decreasing 
extent (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Urban or Built-Up Land (Developed Lands) —Urban and built-up land includes the following 
cover types identified by NJDEP as occurring on the PSEG Site: industrial, 
transportation/communication/utilities, wetlands ROWs, upland ROWs (developed), upland 
ROWs (undeveloped), other urban or built-up land, Phragmites-dommaied urban area, and 
recreational land. Land use in this category is characterized as having been altered by human 
activities (NJDEP 2010-TN2887). Most of these lands on the PSEG Site are related to power 
generation at HCGS and SGS and associated structures. The urban or built-up coverage type 
accounts for 358 ac or 44 percent of the PSEG Site and is located mainly on the west side of 
Artificial Island and on the north end of the proposed causeway near Money Island Road. 

Upland ROWs (undeveloped) support shrubby vegetation but are considered under the urban or 
built-up land category as a result of vegetation maintenance practices (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Included in this category are two wetlands subcategories: wetland ROWs and Phragmites- 
dominated urban area. Wetland ROWs are included in this category because they exhibit 
hydric soils, but as a result of alterations may not support vegetation typical of natural wetlands 
(NJDEP 2010-TN2887). Wetland ROWs account for 23.8 ac or 3 percent of the site, and 
Phragmites -dominated urban areas account for 0.5 ac or less than 1 percent of the site. This 
type of land use provides limited habitat for wildlife use (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Wetlands —The wetlands category includes areas inundated or saturated by surface waters or 
groundwaters at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal 
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil 
conditions. This category does not include wetlands that have been modified for recreation, 
agriculture, or industry that are described under specific use categories (NJDEP 2010-TN2887). 
This habitat is located predominantly on the north and northeast portions of the PSEG Site. The 
wetlands category accounts for 284.9 ac or 35 percent of the site’s total available habitat (PSEG 
2015-TN4280). 


November 2015 


2-53 


NUREG-2168 





Affected Environment 


Wetlands influenced by the tidal portions of the Delaware River system and the tidal portions of 
the watercourses draining into the Atlantic Ocean are categorized as coastal wetlands 
(NJDEP 2010-TN2887). Coastal wetlands found on the site include saline marshes and 
P/7r3g/77/tes-dominated coastal wetlands. Saline marshes are associated with waters with 
salinities greater than 1 ppt and are open graminoid dominated regions. Saltmarsh cordgrass 
(Spartina alterniflora) dominates these wetlands in areas of high salinity. Brackish marshes are 
co-dominated by big cordgrass ( Spartina cynosuroides), saltmarsh cordgrass, common reed 
(Phragmites australis), narrowleaf cattail ( Typha angustifolia), and common threesquare 
(Schoenoplectus pungens). Salt marshes account for 0.2 ac or less than 1 percent of the site 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). The introduction of the invasive species Phragmites australis displaces 
native wetland species, degrading habitat diversity. Phragmites-6orr\\na\e6 coastal wetlands 
are marsh areas dominated by Phragmites australis (NJDEP 2010-TN2887). Phragmites- 
dominated coastal wetlands are the most common wetland type found on the site, accounting 
for 155.6 ac or 19 percent of the site’s vegetation cover (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Isolated wetlands and wetlands generally found in nontidal lowlands influenced by primary, 
secondary, and tertiary courses are categorized as interior wetlands (NJDEP 2010-TN2887). 
Interior Wetlands found on the PSEG Site include deciduous scrub/shrub wetlands, herbaceous 
wetlands, and Phragmites- dominated interior wetlands. Deciduous scrub/shrub wetlands may be 
composed of young saplings of tree species such as red maple {Acer rubrum), ashleaf maple 
{Acer negundo), sweetgum {Liquidambar styraciflua), and shrub species such as silky dogwood 
{Cornus amomum ), red-osier dogwood (C. sericea), gray dogwood (C. racemosa), white 
meadowsweet {Spiraea alba), steeplebush (S. tomentosa), arrow-wood {Viburnum dentatum), 
and hazel alder {Alnus serrulata). This category also includes bogs that are dominated by 
Ericaceae species, and the soils are highly acidic. There are 4.6 ac of deciduous scrub/shrub 
wetlands representing less than 1 percent of the total acreage available (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 
Herbaceous wetlands are characterized as being dominated by herbaceous species associated 
with lake edges, open flood plains, and abandoned wetlands agricultural fields. Species that may 
dominate this cover type include rice cutgrass {Leersia oryzoides ), reed canarygrass {Phalaris 
arundinacea ), yellow cowlilly {Nuphar lutea), halberdleaf tearthumb {Persicaria arifolium), 
arrowleaf tearthumb {P. sagittat), common cattail {Typha latifolia ), and Phragmites (NJDEP 2010- 
TN2887). Herbaceous wetlands account for 5.8 ac, or less than 1 percent, of the total acreage at 
the PSEG Site. Phragmites-domlnaied interior wetlands are dominated by the common reed 
Phragmites australis and account for 118.7 ac or 14.5 percent of the site’s acreage. 

The most common species observed by PSEG during 2009 to 2010 walking surveys of onsite 
wetland habitats included groundsel tree/sea myrtle {Baccharis halimifolia), Japanese 
honeysuckle {Lonicerajaponica ), common ragweed {Ambrosia artemisiifolia ), mugwort 
{Artemisia vulgaris), horseweed {Conyza canadensis), Queen Anne’s lace {Daucus carota), 
annual fleabane {Erigeron annuus), late boneset {Eupatorium serotinum), fescue {Festuca sp.), 
Carolina crane’s-bill {Geranium carolinianum), foxtail barley {Hordeumjubatum), white sweet 
clover {Melilotus albus), yellow sweet clover {Melilotus officinalis), blue scorpion grass {Myosotis 
stricta), Texas toadflax {Nuttallanthus texenus), common reed, American plantain ( Plantago 
rugelii), plantain {Plantago virginica), Canada bluegrass {Poa compressa), mile-a-minute vine 
{Persicaria perfoliatam), red sorrel {Rumex acetosella), curly dock {Rumex crispus), green 
foxtail {Setaria viridis), goldenrod {Solidago sp.), and purpletop {Tridens flavus) (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280). 


NUREG-2168 


2-54 


November 2015 




Affected Environment 


Forested Land —Old field (<25 percent brush covered), Phragmites-6 ominated old field, and 
deciduous brush/shrubland identified by NJDEP as occurring on the PSEG Site are categorized 
under forested land, brushland/shrubland. Vegetation cover could include early successional 
species to climax species and are between 0 and 20 ft in height. Old field is also covered in this 
category and can contain shrubs and grasses (NJDEP 2010-TN2887). Forested land covers 
more than 107.3 ac of the site or 13 percent (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Old field (<25 percent brushed covered) is predominantly covered by grasses, herbaceous 
species, tree seedlings, and/or saplings. Phragmites-6 ominated old field contains open fields 
predominantly covered by the common reed. Natural forested areas covered predominantly 
with deciduous species less than 20 ft in height are classified under deciduous brush/shrubland. 
This category can also include agricultural lands that have been overgrown with brush 
(NJDEP 2010-TN2887). 

Walking surveys conducted by PSEG in 2009 to 2010 on brushland/scrubland areas indicated 
that the most common vegetation species were groundsel tree/sea myrtle, autumn olive 
(Elaeagnus umbellata), multiflora rose ( Rosa multiflora ), Japanese honeysuckle, poison ivy 
(Toxicodendron radicans ), annual ragweed ( Ambrosia artemisiifolia ), broomsedge ( Andropogon 
virginicus ), thyme-leaf sandwort ( Arenaria serpyllifolia), mugwort, Queen Anne’s lace, common 
spike rush {Eleocharis palustris), late boneset ( Eupatorium ), fescue, Chinese lespedeza 
( Lespedeza cuneata), yellow sweet clover ( Melilotus officinalis), blue scorpion grass, common 
reed, plantain, Canada bluegrass, green foxtail grass, Canada goldenrod ( Solidago altissima), 
goldenrod, and purpletop (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Water —The NJDEP LULC category of water includes all areas within the landmass of New 
Jersey periodically covered by water. This includes the artificial lakes and tidal rivers, inland 
bays, and other tidal waters found on the PSEG Site. Artificial lakes include water bodies that 
are 1 ac and larger and desilt basins. Water control structures would be present on these sites. 
Tidal rivers, inland bays, and other tidal waters include tidal portions of watercourses, enclosed 
tidal bays, and other tidal water bodies (NJDEP 2010-TN2887). Land cover categorized as 
water accounts for approximately 46 ac or 5.6 percent of the site (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Barren Land —Barren lands are in a nonurban setting and are characterized by thin soil, sand, 
or rocks. These land cover types often are lacking vegetative cover, or the vegetation is sparse 
(NJDEP 2010-TN2887). The NJDEP LULC data indicates that two subcategories of barren 
land—altered lands and disturbed wetlands—are present on the site. Altered lands are 
nonurban areas that have been changed by human activities. Disturbed wetlands are former 
natural wetlands that have been altered by clearing, grading, leveling, filling, and/or excavating. 
The soils are hydric, but the land lacks vegetation or wetland species. Barren lands represent 
19.1 ac of the site’s total acreage or 2 percent (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Managed Wetland —Managed wetlands are characterized by hydric soils but do not support 
typical wetland vegetation. Some examples are stormwater swales, golf fairways and 
recreational fields, and open lawn areas (NJDEP 2010-TN2887). Managed wetlands account 
for 3.8 ac, or less than 1 percent, of the site (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 


November 2015 


2-55 


NUREG-2168 






Affected Environment 


Vicinity 

Portions of the State of Delaware and the Delaware River lie within the 6-mi vicinity in addition 
to portions of the State of New Jersey. The NJDEP LULC database does not provide 
vegetation cover for areas outside of New Jersey. As a result, the USGS LULC database was 
used to determine the vegetation communities for areas within the 6-mi vicinity. Table 2-2 
quantifies the USGS LULC cover types found on the vicinity of the PSEG Site. The USGS 
database is composed of nine LULC categories (Anderson et al. 1976-TN2888). Six of these 
categories are applicable to the PSEG vicinity: urban or built-up land (developed land), 
agricultural land, forest land, water, wetlands, and barren land. Urban or built-up land accounts 
for 939 ac or 1.2 percent of the available land use in the vicinity. Agricultural land includes 
cultivated crops and pasture. Approximately 17,097 ac, or 23.2 percent, of the vicinity’s 
available vegetation cover is agricultural. Forested land in the vicinity includes deciduous, 
evergreen, and mixed forests and accounts for approximately 2,653 ac or 3.6 percent of the 
vicinity’s available vegetation cover. As a result of the PSEG Site’s proximity to the Delaware 
River and Bay, water is the largest available LULC in the vicinity, accounting for approximately 
26,837 ac or 34.7 percent of the vicinity. There are about 16,555 ac of emergent herbaceous 
wetlands and 8,979 ac of woody wetlands. Together, the wetlands LULC accounts for 34.6 
percent, the second largest vegetation cover type in the vicinity. Barren land makes up nearly 
651 ac or less than 1 percent of the LULC (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

The existing access road and the proposed causeway are included as part of the vicinity. The 
existing access road extends 3.6 mi east-northeast from the PSEG Site to Alloway Creek Neck 
Road. The ROW is 350 ft wide except where it traverses State-owned lands, where it is 450 ft 
wide (PSEG 2015-TN4280). PSEG holds the deed of easement to the privately owned access 
road and is responsible for its maintenance and operation (PSEG 2015-TN4280; PSEG 1982- 
TN2889). Vegetation cover types (Table 2-3) in the existing access road include 134 ac of 
agricultural land, 146 ac of wetlands, 50 ac of urban or built-up land, 39 ac of barren land, 6 ac 
of forest land, and 4 ac of water. The total area covered by the existing access road ROW is 
379 ac (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Dominant species noted along the access road include common 
reed and saltmarsh cordgrass (PSEG 1982-TN2889). PSEG conducted a qualitative field 
survey of the road side vegetation along the existing access road in the 2009 growing season. 
The survey listed 83 species of plants including 21 tree/sapling species, 9 shrubs, 5 vines, and 
48 herb species. No endangered or threatened plant species were observed (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280). 

Wildlife 

Historical data in support of HCGS and SGS licensing activities were used as the starting point 
for baselining wildlife data for the PSEG Site and vicinity. Additional information from biological 
monitoring reports from HCGS and SGS operations, resource agencies, conservation 
organizations, and field surveys was used to supplement historical data. Field surveys were 
completed from 2009 to 2010 (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 


NUREG-2168 


2-56 


November 2015 




Affected Environment 


Mammals 


PSEG initiated a records review that included information about species potentially occurring in 
the region from New Jersey and Delaware wildlife agencies. The records review was supported 
by qualitative mammal surveys conducted in 2009 and 2010. Twenty-nine mammal species 
were observed during the field surveys. The most common species observed were white-tailed 
deer ( Odocoileus virginianus), raccoon ( Procyon lotor), eastern cottontail ( Sylvilagus floridanus), 
opossum ( Didelphis virginiana), and eastern gray squirrel ( Sciurus carolinensis). Other 
mammal species observed on the site or in the vicinity included groundhog ( Marmota monax), 
muskrat ( Ondatra zibethicus), Norway rat ( Rattus norveigecus), coyote (Cam's latrans ), river 
otter ( Lontra canadensis), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), black bear (Ursus americanus), 
and red fox (Vulpes vulpes). Mammal species that were not observed during the survey but that 
have been observed in the past or are known to occur on the site or vicinity include short-tailed 
shrew (Blarina brevicauda), masked shrew (Sorex cinereus), big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), 
red bat (Lasiurus borealis), little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus), keen’s myotis (M. keenii), 
small-footed myotis (Myotis leibii), tri-colored bat (Perimyotis subflavus), meadow vole (Microtus 
pennsylvanicus), house mouse (Mus musculus), marsh rice rat (Oryzomyspalaustris), white¬ 
footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), southern bog lemming (Synaptomys cooperi), meadow 
jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius), long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata), and gray fox (Urocyon 
cinereoargenteus) (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Muskrat was the most observed mammal species along the access road during previous 
surveys. In addition, house mouse, meadow vole, masked shrew. Norway rat, and marsh rice 
rat were the most commonly captured mammal species along the access road (PSEG 1982- 
TN2889). No Federally or State-listed endangered or threatened mammal species were 
observed during the 2009 qualitative surveys (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Birds 


An initial records review was conducted to identify bird species recorded in the vicinity of the 
PSEG Site. During 2009 to 2010 field surveys, 15,112 birds of 125 species were observed 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). Previous surveys of the existing access road have identified over 
180 avian species (PSEG 1982-TN2889). Common passerine species observed during field 
surveys included red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), common grackle ( Quiscalus 
guiscula), brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), northern 
cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis ), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), American robin 
(Turdus migratorius), gray catbird (Dumetella carolinensis), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis 
trichas), tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), song sparrow 
(Melospiza melodia), and European starling (Sturnus vulgaris). Common waterfowl species 
recorded included Canada goose (Branta canadensis), snow goose (Chen caerulescens), 
mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), American black duck (Anas rubripes), and greater scaup (Aythya 
marila). Shorebird species prevalent during the survey included least sandpiper (Calidris 
minutilla) and lesser yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes). Gulls commonly observed during the survey 
included ring-billed gull (Larus delawarensis) and greater black-backed gull (Larus marinus) 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). Turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) was another bird species commonly 
observed during the survey. 


November 2015 


2-57 


NUREG-2168 





Affected Environment 


Most of the habitat on the PSEG Site consists of areas dominated by a common reed 
monoculture. Phragmites monocultures have limited structure and provide poor quality 
foraging, nesting, and cover habitat for most birds. Therefore, any use of this habitat by most 
birds would probably be of a transitory nature. Marsh wrens ( Cistothorus palustris) and red¬ 
winged blackbirds are two species that could potentially use the fringes of the Phragmites areas 
for breeding/nesting. The northern harrier ( Circus cyaneus), osprey ( Pandion haliaetus ), and 
bald eagle ( Haliaeetus leucocephalus) are three coastal habitat raptor species observed on the 
site. The adjacent Delaware River bordering the PSEG Site to the west and south provides 
moderate to good foraging habitat for these species. Ospreys nest on transmission towers 
within the site vicinity along the existing PSEG access road and proposed causeway corridor. 
Old field habitat in the southeastern portion of the site contains eastern red cedar and autumn 
olive and provides some foraging and nesting habitat for songbirds. Typical songbirds observed 
in this area included northern cardinal, song sparrow, gray catbird, common yellowthroat, and 
yellow warbler ( Dendroica petechia) (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

The site and vicinity also provide foraging habitat for wading birds and shorebirds. Species 
observed in the area included great blue heron ( Ardea herodias), green heron ( Butorides 
virescens), little blue heron ( Egretta caerulea ), great egret ( Ardea alba), snowy egret ( Egretta 
thula), cattle egret ( Bubulcus ibis), black-crowned night-heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), glossy 
ibis ( Plegadis falcinellus), black-necked stilt ( Himantopus mexicanus), greater yellowlegs 
(Tringa melanoleuca), and lesser yellowlegs ( Tringa flavipes). There are no known colonial 
waterbird rookeries on the PSEG Site or within the 6-mi vicinity. The closest is about 9 mi north 
of the site on the Delaware River at Pea Patch Island, Fort Delaware State Park. The rookery, 
located at the northern undeveloped end of the island, is the largest heron and egret rookery on 
the east coast of the United States. Pea Patch Island supports 5,000 to 12,000 breeding pairs 
of wading birds. The nine species of colonial waterbirds that nest at this rookery are the great 
blue heron, great egret, little blue heron, snowy egret, cattle egret, yellow-crowned night-heron 
(Nyctanassa violacea), black-crowned night-heron, glossy ibis, and tricolored heron ( Egretta 
tricolor) (PSEG 2015-TN4280). A special area management plan was developed for the Pea 
Patch Island Heronry Region that emphasizes the need for protection, restoration, 
enhancement, and creation of suitable foraging and nesting habitat for wading birds and other 
birds in the Delaware Estuary (DCMP and NOAA 1998-TN4233). 

New Jersey is located within the Atlantic migratory flyway (Birdnature.com 2013-TN2890). Birds 
observed in the PSEG Site vicinity that use this flyway include Canada goose, snow goose, 
mallard, American black duck, greater scaup, least sandpiper, semipalmated sandpiper ( Calidris 
pusilla), lesser yellowlegs, and greater yellowlegs (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Reptiles 

Qualitative surveys were conducted on the PSEG Site in the spring, summer, and fall of 2009 to 
record reptile species found in the various habitats on the site. During the surveys, three turtle 
species and three snake species were recorded. A records review was conducted before the 
initiation of field surveys to determine reptile species that potentially could occur in the region. 
This included gathering information from New Jersey and Delaware WMAs regarding known 
ranges of reptile species in the vicinity of the site, as well as details on any listed species that 


NUREG-2168 


2-58 


November 2015 




Affected Environment 


may occur in the area. The records searches were supplemented with the field studies 
conducted in 2009 (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Reptiles were surveyed through general site reconnaissance and observation, and transect 
surveys along the same eight study transects used to conduct the bird and mammal surveys. 
Representative portions of the proposed causeway and areas adjacent to the existing access 
road were also surveyed qualitatively. Historical data from an intensive study conducted on 
Artificial Island and vicinity (1972 to 1978) were also used to aid in the characterization of reptile 
populations and the identification of important species within the PSEG Site (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280). 

The most common reptile species recorded on the PSEG Site during the 2009 field surveys was 
the eastern painted turtle ( Chrysemys picta picta). A total of 11 additional species of turtles, 11 
additional species of snakes, and one species of lizard were recorded during the Artificial Island 
study from 1972 to 1978. Federally and/or New Jersey State-listed turtles recorded during the 
Artificial Island study included the bog turtle ( Glyptemys muhlenbergii). Sea turtles are 
discussed in Section 2.4.2. The bog turtle was not recorded at the PSEG Site during the 2009 
studies (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Amphibians 

Qualitative surveys were conducted on the PSEG Site in the spring, summer, and fall of 2009 
to record amphibian species found in the various habitats on the site. During the surveys, five 
species of frogs and toads were recorded. A records review was conducted before the 
initiation of field surveys to determine amphibian species that potentially could occur in the 
region. This included gathering information from New Jersey and Delaware WMAs regarding 
known ranges of amphibian species in the vicinity of the site, as well as details on any listed 
species that may occur in the area. These records searches were supplemented with the 
field studies conducted in 2009 (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Amphibians were surveyed through general site reconnaissance and observation, spring 
night-time anuran (frog and toad) call surveys, and transect surveys along the same eight study 
transects used to conduct the bird, mammal, and reptile surveys. Representative portions of the 
proposed causeway and areas adjacent to the existing access road were also surveyed 
qualitatively. Historical data from an intensive study conducted on Artificial Island and vicinity 
(1972 to 1978) also were used to aid in the characterization of amphibian populations and the 
identification of important species within the PSEG Site (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

The most common amphibian species recorded on the site during field surveys conducted in 
2009 included the northern spring peeper ( Pseudacris crucifer) and southern leopard frog 
(.Lithobates sphenocephalus). In July 2009, green tree frogs (Hyla cinerea ) were recorded in 
ponds within the desilt basins in the northwestern portion of the PSEG Site (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280). Green tree frogs were also recorded during a survey conducted in June to July 2012 
at three onsite locations and numerous locations in the site vicinity (AMEC 2012-TN3187). The 
green tree frog is a resident species in Delaware; however, this is the first record for the species 
in New Jersey. Seven additional species of frogs and toads and nine species of salamanders 
were recorded during the Artificial Island study conducted between 1972 and 1978. This 


November 2015 


2-59 


NUREG-2168 



Affected Environment 


included the New Jersey State-listed eastern tiger salamander ( Ambystoma tigrinum). The tiger 
salamander was not recorded at the PSEG Site during the 2009 studies (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Nuisance Species 

Nuisance species are disease vectors or pests. These include a large number of terrestrial 
wildlife species that can be pests in urban, suburban, or even rural settings. Wildlife species in 
this category either recently or previously recorded on the PSEG Site or in the vicinity include 
coyote, Norway rat, and European starling. Although coyote can be a beneficial predator in 
natural settings, it can be a nuisance in urban and suburban settings, resulting in more 
confrontations with people and predation on pets (i.e., small dogs and cats). The Norway rat 
and European starling are non-native species common to urban and surburban areas. Norway 
rats can damage property and spread diseases, and European starlings out-compete native bird 
species for nesting habitat and become a general nuisance where they congregate in large 
roosting flocks. 

Additional nuisance species on the PSEG Site may include insects such as ticks, mosquitoes, 
and wasps. On the site, the one known disease vector is the blacklegged or deer tick ( Ixodes 
scapularis), which transmits the bacterial pathogen ( Borrelia burgdorferi) from small rodents, 
squirrels, and deer to humans (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Invasive pest plant species found on the PSEG Site include the invasive strain of common reed, 
Lespedeza cuneata, and others. Common reed causes the most concern because it 
out-competes native wetland species. Not native to New Jersey, the common reed first 
appeared in the Delaware River Estuary during the 1950s, following several years of repeated 
disturbance by hurricanes. It is a wetland species that typically occurs in marshes and along 
rivers, lakes, and ponds. The plant can tolerate moderate salinity and thrives in disturbed 
wetland areas. Once established in an area from seed, this reed reproduces mainly through 
vegetative growth by rhizomes and stolons, forming dense monoculture communities (PSEG 
2015-TN4280). 

Travel Corridors 

Travel corridors provide numerous essential functions needed for the survival of wildlife species. 
Corridors can be viewed at three scales: (1) local, (2) regional, and (3) migratory. In diverse 
landscapes, wildlife travel through areas of favorable habitat that connect to other habitats that 
meet their basic needs of food and shelter. On a local level, typical travel corridors may include 
brushy or forested hedgerows, fencerows, stream riparian zones, or ridgetops. The PSEG Site 
is elevated above surrounding coastal habitats (marshland and riverine), making it more of a 
habitat island than a wildlife travel corridor. Habitats on the PSEG Site are dominated by early 
successional plant communities that do not act as major wildlife travel corridors. Alloway Creek 
and associated coastal wetlands are part of an extensive coastal wetland complex that follows 
the New Jersey coastline. This large area of contiguous habitat may be considered part of a 
larger corridor that could be used by wildlife for dispersal and seasonal movements within the 
project vicinity (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Certain species of wildlife may be limited to movement 
in human-made travel corridors, which include existing transmission lines and an existing 
access road on the PSEG Site. 


NUREG-2168 


2-60 


November 2015 






Affected Environment 


The Delaware River, as part of the Atlantic Flyway, acts as the major migratory travel corridor in 
the vicinity of the PSEG Site. This is one of the four major flyways in North America. The New 
Jersey coastline is a major stopover and wintering area for a number of waterfowl and shorebird 
species. New Jersey’s latitude places it about midway between the equator and northern 
forests and Arctic areas. Its central location means it serves many migratory bird populations. 

It is a major stopover point for northern bird populations during migration southward in the fall 
and northward in the spring and acts as a wintering endpoint for a number of species 
(NJ Audubon 2014-TN2896). The Delaware River also is used as a travel corridor by coastal 
raptors (e.g., bald eagles, northern harriers, and ospreys) for foraging and while searching for 
nest sites (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Human-Induced Ecological Effects on the Site and Vicinity 

The PSEG Site is located on Artificial Island, which was created with dredge spoils from the 
Delaware River. The southwestern portion of the island is dominated by the roads, parking, and 
structures associated with HCGS and SGS. Activities related to HCGS and SGS present the 
most obvious human-induced disturbances on the PSEG Site (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

The existing nuclear generation stations have been operating for 37 years (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280). The existing SGS Unit 1 began production in 1976, and by 1986, SGS Unit 2 and 
HCGS Unit 1 were operating. The tallest structure is the HCGS cooling tower, which is 512 ft 
above the surrounding landscape. This structure has a localized impact on migrating birds in 
the area. PSEG monitored bird collisions with the HCGS cooling towers over a 3-year period 
ending in 1986. During that time frame, 30 bird mortalities were noted and attributed to the 
cooling tower (PSEG 1987-TN2893). 

Sources of noise on the PSEG Site include the HCGS cooling tower; vehicle traffic; 
overhead transmission lines; transformers; heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning units; and 
aircraft. The highest noise levels, 51.6 dBA, are attributed to the operation of the cooling 
tower and road traffic on the site. While noise can be a deterrent to wildlife species, many 
species on the PSEG Site have adapted. This adaptation is evident by the numerous bird 
species present near the cooling tower (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

2.4.1.2 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources—Existing Transmission Lines 

Four existing 550-kV transmission lines within three existing transmission corridors convey 
power from SGS and HCGS. The existing 102 mi of transmission corridors cross Salem, 
Gloucester, and Camden Counties in New Jersey and New Castle County in Delaware (PSEG 
2015-TN4280). The existing transmission lines include Hope Creek-New Freedom, Salem- 
New Freedom, Hope Creek-Red Lion, and Salem-New Freedom South. The Hope Creek-New 
Freedom line is operated by Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) for the extent 
of its 43 mi length to the New Freedom substation in Williamstown, New Jersey. It lies within a 
350-ft-wide ROW and is segmented by the Orchard substation. The Salem-New Freedom line 
is operate by PSE&G and runs 50 mi northeast to the New Freedom substation. It shares the 
same ROW as the Hope Creek-New Freedom line. The Hope Creek-Red Lion transmission 
line extends north for 13 mi, where it then crosses west over the Delaware River for 4 mi to the 
Red Lion substation in Delaware. The line is operated by PSE&G in New Jersey and Pepco 


November 2015 


2-61 


NUREG-2168 




Affected Environment 


Holdings Inc. (PHI) in Delaware. Most of the ROW is 200 ft wide, while one-third is 350 ft wide. 
The Salem-New Freedom South transmission line is operated by PSE&G and extends to the 
northeast for 42 mi, where it connects with the New Freedom substation in Williamstown, New 
Jersey. The ROW is about 350 ft wide but varies along its length (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Existing Cover Types and Vegetation 

Data on the vegetation cover types for the existing transmission ROWs are based on 500-ft 
corridors and USGS LULC data. The total area covered by existing transmission lines is 
6,920 ac, including 2,682 ac of agricultural land, 2,100 ac of forest land, 244 ac of urban/built-up 
land, 1,564 ac of wetlands, 206 ac of water, and 124 ac of barren land. Forest land includes 
1,843 ac of deciduous forest and 233 ac of evergreen forest. Wetlands include 1,029 ac of 
woody wetlands and 535 ac of emergent herbaceous. Transmission line ROWs supporting the 
PSEG Site are contained within the 50-mi region. The 50-mi region consists of the Middle 
Atlantic Coastal Plain, Northern Piedmont, and Atlantic Coastal Pine Barrens. Native vegetation 
in the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain consists of swampy, marshy, and frequently flooded areas. 
Northern Piedmont consists of irregular plains and low hills. Atlantic Coastal Pine Barrens are 
characterized as low, undulating parts of the Atlantic Coastal Plain (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Wildlife 

Recent surveys for wildlife within transmission line corridors in the region were not conducted. 
However, wildlife species inhabiting transmission line corridors would consist of those found 
commonly in the region. This includes approximately 450 species that naturally occur in New 
Jersey (NJDEP 2012-TN3318). PSEG included portions of the existing transmission line 
corridors as part of their 2009 to 2010 surveys of the vicinity. Wildlife species along the existing 
transmission line ROWs within the site and 6-mi vicinity would be similar to those species 
described in Section 2.4.1.1 (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Human-Induced Ecological Effects on the Existing Transmission Lines 

Transmission line ROWs maintenance, including vegetation removal by mechanical means and 
herbicides, imposes a stress on terrestrial resources (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Transmission line 
ROWs fragment forested habitats and act as a barrier to wildlife movements. Additionally, 
transmission line ROWs may potentially cause avian mortality (NRC 2013-TN2654). 

2.4. 7 .3 Important Terrestrial and Wetland Species and Habitats—Site and Vicinity 

This section discusses important species and habitats, as described by the NRC in NUREG- 
1555 (NRC 2000-TN614), which may occur on and in the vicinity of the PSEG Site. Important 
species defined under NUREG-1555 include, but are not limited to, commercially and 
recreationally valuable species; Federally and State-listed, proposed, and candidate threatened 
and endangered terrestrial species; species essential to the maintenance and survival of rare or 
commercially or recreationally valuable species; species critical to structure or function of local 
terrestrial ecosystems; and species that serve as biological indicators (NRC 2000-TN614). 
Several species in the PSEG Site and vicinity are identified as being commercially and 
recreationally valuable species as well as Federally and State-listed threatened or endangered 
species. 


NUREG-2168 


2-62 


November 2015 


Affected Environment 


“Important habitat" is defined by the NRC in NUREG-1555 as wildlife sanctuaries, refuges or 
preserves, wetlands, floodplains, and areas identified as critical habitat by the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service (FWS) (NRC 2000-TN614). 

The NJDEP, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC), 
and FWS were consulted for information regarding sensitive species and habitats in the vicinity 
of the PSEG Site. This included letters of correspondence and phone conversations as well as 
personal meetings with NJDEP and DNREC to obtain agency input on threatened and 
endangered species, sensitive habitats, commercial and recreational species, and other 
characteristics for the site and vicinity. A response has not yet been received from FWS 
regarding this project. However, FWS did correspond with PSEG in response to a request for 
information on the presence of threatened and endangered species related to the HCGS and 
SGS license renewal applications. Information from these consultations, as well as existing 
Federal and State lists available on the internet, was used as the basis for identifying important 
species and habitats (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Table 2-8 provides a list of threatened and endangered species identified through 
correspondence with resource agencies as potentially occurring in the region surrounding the 
PSEG Site; the list includes updates provided in the revised February 2012 NJDEP threatened 
and endangered species lists (NJDEP 2012-TN2186). Each listed bird species potentially 
occurring in the study area is listed by New Jersey and/or Delaware, while none are Federally 
listed species. Each of these species either has been observed historically in the vicinity of the 
PSEG Site or has been observed recently as part of the 2009 to 2010 data collection activities. 
Most of these species are widely foraging (e.g., bald eagle and red-shouldered hawk) or species 
associated with upland habitats (e.g., Cooper’s hawk and red-headed woodpecker) that are 
unlikely to nest in the immediate project area. By comparison, ospreys are known to nest on 
transmission towers along both access corridors. Northern harrier is a ground nesting and 
widely foraging species that may also nest in the study area. Those species associated with 
aquatic habitats include pied-billed grebe, cattle egret, and black-crowned night-heron. The 
Federally threatened bog turtle was recorded historically for Artificial Island during a study 
conducted between 1972 and 1978 (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 


Table 2-8. Threatened (T), Endangered (E), and Special Concern (SC) Species 



Potentially Occurring 

in the Vicinity of the PSEG Site (a) 


Genus 

Species 

Federal 

Common Name Status 

NJ DE 

Status Status 

Birds 

Accipiter 

cooperii 

Cooper’s hawk 

SC 

A cc ip iter 

gentilis 

Northern goshawk 

E (b) /SC (c) 

Accipiter 

striatus 

Sharp-shinned hawk 

sc (bc) 

Act it is 

macularius 

Spotted sandpiper 

sc (b) 


November 2015 


2-63 


NUREG-2168 





Affected Environment 


Table 2-8. (continued) 


Genus 

Species 

Common Name 

Federal 

Status 

NJ 

Status 

DE 

Status 

Ammodramus 

savannarum 

Grasshopper sparrow 


T (b VSC (c) 


Ardea 

herodias 

Great blue heron 


sc (b) 

sc (b) 

Bubulcus 

ibis 

Cattle egret 


T< b )/SC (c) 


Buteo 

lineatus 

Red-shouldered hawk 


E (b) /SC (c) 


Buteo 

platypterus 

Broad-winged hawk 


sc (b) 


Calidris 

canutus rufa 

Rufa red knot 

T 

E 

E 

Circus 

cyaneus 

Northern harrier 


E (b VSC (c) 

E 

Coccyzus 

erythropthalmus 

Black-billed cuckoo 


sc (b) 


Dolichonyx 

oryzivorus 

Bobolink 


T (b) /SC (c) 


Egretta 

thula 

Snowy egret 


sc (b) 


Egretta 

caerulea 

Little blue heron 


SC (b ' c) 


Eremophila 

alpestris 

Horned lark 


T< b )/SC (c) 


Falco 

peregrinus 

Peregrine falcon 


E (b) /SC (c) 

sc (b) 

Falco 

sparverius 

American kestrel 


T 


Oporornis 

formosus 

Kentucky warbler 


SC (b ' c) 


Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus 

Bald eagle 


E(b)/r(c) 


Helmitheros 

vermivorum 

Worm-eating warbler 


SC (b) 


Hylocichla 

mustelina 

Wood thrush 


sc (b) 


Icteria 

virens 

Yellow-breasted chat 


SC (b) 


Ixobrychus 

exilis 

Least bittern 



sc (b) 

Metanerpes 

erythrocephalus 

Red-headed woodpecker 


J(b.c) 


Nycticorax 

nycticorax 

Black-crowned night-heron 


T (b) /SC (c) 


Pandion 

haliaetus 

Osprey 


J(b) 


Passerculus 

sandwichensis 

Savannah sparrow 


y(b) 


Petrochelidon 

pyrrhonota 

Cliff swallow 


sc (b) 


Plegadis 

falcinellus 

Glossy ibis 


sc (b) 


Podilymbus 

podiceps 

Pied-billed grebe 


E (b) /SC (c) 

E(b) 

Parula 

americana 

Northern parula 


sc (b) 


Wilsonia 

citrina 

Hooded warbler 


sc (b) 


Sterna 

hirundo 

Common tern 


sc (b > 


Sturnella 

magna 

Eastern meadowlark 


sc (bc) 


Toxostoma 

rufum 

Brown thrasher 


sc (b) 


Troglodytes 

hiemalis 

Winter wren 


sc (b) 


Tyto 

alba 

Barn owl 


SC (b ' c > 


Reptiles 






Clemmys 

guttata 

Spotted turtle 


sc 


Glyptemys 

muhlenbergii 

Bog turtle 

T 

E 

E 

Lampropeltis 

getula getula 

Eastern kingsnake 


SC 

SC 

Terrapene 

Carolina Carolina 

Eastern box turtle 


sc 


Thamnophis 

sauritus 

Eastern ribbon snake 



SC 


NUREG-2168 2-64 


November 2015 







Affected Environment 


Table 2-8. (continued) 


Genus 

Species 

Common Name 

Federal 

Status 

NJ 

Status 

DE 

Status 

Amphibians 






Am by stoma 

maculatum 

Spotted salamander 



SC 

Am by stoma 

opacum 

Marbled salamander 


SC 


Am by stoma 

tigrinum tigrinum 

Eastern tiger salamander 


E 

E 

Anaxyrus 

fowled 

Fowler's toad 


SC 


Mammals 






Myotis 

septentrionalis 

Northern long-eared bat 

T 



Plants 






Adiantum 

pedatum 

Northern maidenhair-fern 



SC 

Aeschynomene 

virginica 

Sensitive joint-vetch 

y(a) 



Agrimonia 

gryposepala 

Tall hairy groovebur 



SC 

Carex 

prasina 

Drooping sedge 



sc 

Carex 

squarrosa 

Squarrose sedge 



sc 

Carex 

striatula 

Lined sedge 



sc 

Cynoglossum 

virginianum 

Wild comfrey 



sc 

Eleocharis 

quadrangulata 

Angled spike-rush 


SC 


Helonias 

bullata 

Swamp pink 

f(a) 



Iris 

prismatica 

Slender blueflag iris 



sc 

Isotria 

medeoloides 

Pogonia, small whorled 

T 



Limnobium 

spongia 

American frogbite 



sc 

Cicuta 

bulbifera 

Bulb-bearing water-hemlock 



sc 

Phragmites 

australis subsp. 

American common reed 



sc 


americanus 





Tsuga 

canadensis 

Eastern hemlock 



sc 

Malaxis 

unifolia 

Green adder’s-mouth 



sc 

Ophioglossum 

vulgatum 

Southern adder’s-tongue 



sc 

Polygonum 

ramosissimum 

Bushy knotweed 



sc 

Pycnanthemum 

verticillatum 

Whorled mountain-mint 



sc 

Sagittaria 

calycina 

Long-lobed arrowhead 



sc 

Setaria 

magna 

Giant fox-tail 


sc 


Spartina 

pectinata 

Freshwater cordgrass 



sc 

Vernonia 

glauca 

Broadleaf ironweed 



sc 

Insects 






Asterocampa 

celtis 

Hackberry emperor 



sc 

Cisthene 

tenuifascia 

Lichen moth 



sc 

Lycaena 

hyllus 

Bronze copper 


E 

sc 

Sympetrum 

ambiguum 

Blue-faced meadowhawk 



sc 


(a) Potential for occurrence based on agency consultations and habitat types found within the site and 6-mi vicinity 
and along proposed causeway. 

(b) Breeding. 

(c) Nonbreeding^ 


November 2015 


2-65 


NUREG-2168 









Affected Environment 


Commercially and Recreationally Valuable Species 

Mammals . Important commercial and recreational mammal species potentially occurring on the 
PSEG Site and in the vicinity include white-tailed deer, river otter, and muskrat. White-tailed 
deer are considered important because they are recreationally hunted in the area of the PSEG 
Site. The river otter and muskrat are considered important because they are commercially 
trapped in the area of the PSEG Site (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

White-tailed deer were observed in the PSEG Site and vicinity in Phragmites-6om\nate6 wetland 
habitat and more frequently in the old field habitat during the 2009 to 2010 field surveys. The 
only onsite area that provides forage for white-tailed deer is the old field habitat. PSEG allows 
for limited deer hunting on the PSEG Site under controlled conditions to cull deer populations 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

The river otter and muskrats are considered to be commercially important because they are 
valued as furbearers. Their habitats include both freshwater and coastal areas such as lakes, 
rivers, marshes, swamps, and estuaries. River otters were observed at the PSEG Site and 
vicinity in the spring and summer during the 2009 to 2010 field survey (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

In New Jersey, muskrats occupy a number of estuarine habitats, including impounded and 
natural tidal and inland marshes, along with freshwater ponds, streams, and lakes. Muskrats 
were observed at the PSEG Site and in the vicinity in spring and summer during the 2009 to 
2010 surveys (PSEG 2015-TN4280). This species was also recorded during past work 
conducted in the Alloway Creek watershed (PSEG 2004-TN2897). 

Birds . Bird species potentially occurring on the site or in the vicinity that are considered 
important for recreational or commercial value include northern pintail ( Anas acuta), green¬ 
winged teal {Anas crecca), mallard, American black duck, ring-necked duck ( Aythya collaris), 
greater scaup, bufflehead {Bucephala albeola), hooded merganser ( Lophodytes cucullatus), 
common merganser ( Mergus merganser), red-breasted merganser ( Mergus serrator), American 
coot ( Fulica americana), Canada goose , snow goose, and wild turkey ( Meleagris gallopavo) 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). All of these species are common to New Jersey and were observed 
either on the PSEG Site or in the 6-mi vicinity during the course of the 2009 to 2010 survey. 
Several recreational species were observed in the existing access road corridor as well, 
including the Canada goose, mallard, black duck, and green-winged teal (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Federally and State-Listed Species 

Table 2-8 provides a list of threatened, endangered, and special concern species identified 
through correspondence with resource agencies as potentially occurring in the region 
surrounding the PSEG Site. 

The Federally threatened and endangered species list was developed using the FWS species 
list for the 6-mi vicinity. Only two counties were identified as within the vicinity: Salem County, 
New Jersey and New Castle County, Delaware. Six Federally listed terrestrial species are 
known or believed to occur on the PSEG Site or in the vicinity. All six species are Federally 
listed as threatened. One species is a bird, one is a mammal, one is a reptile, and three are 


NUREG-2168 


2-66 


November 2015 






Affected Environment 


plants. Of the Federally listed species, only the bog turtle has been recorded as occurring on 
the PSEG Site (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Biological assessments (BAs) for the bog turtle, northern 
long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), and rufa red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) are included in 
Appendix F in support of consultation with the FWS. 

NJDEP Division of Fish and Wildlife maintains the State’s endangered and threatened wildlife 
species lists. New Jersey endangered and threatened species are those whose prospects for 
survival in New Jersey either are immediately in danger or may become endangered because of 
loss of habitat, exploitation, predation, competition, disease, disturbance, or contamination. 
Other classifications include species of special concern. Additionally, New Jersey distinguishes 
between breeding and nonbreeding populations for avian species (NJDEP 2014-TN3286). 

The State of Delaware Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program is maintained by the 
DNREC Division of Fish and Wildlife (DNREC 2013-TN3067). Delaware’s Division of Fish and 
Wildlife ranks species based on their relative rarity in the State and in either of the State’s two 
physiographic provinces (Piedmont or Coastal Plain) (DNREC 2006-TN2899). The ranking 
system is based on a system used by Nature Serve, a nonprofit conservation organization. The 
Delaware State status ranks include SI, defined as extremely rare species in Delaware; 

S2, very rare; S3, rare to uncommon; and S4, apparently secure. The letter “B" refers to 
breeding status and nonbreeding status. In response to the applicant, the Division of Fish and 
Wildlife provided a list of endangered species and species of concern in a letter dated 
April 7, 2009 (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Table 2-8 provides a list of rare species within the 6-mi 
vicinity of the PSEG Site within the State of Delaware’s boundaries and only in areas that have 
been surveyed as of March 31, 2009. DNREC Division of Fish and Wildlife has not surveyed all 
the areas within Delaware and additional rare species not listed may occur within the vicinity of 
the project area. 

Additionally, several State-listed species were observed near the existing access road, such as 
the cattle egret, black-crowned night-heron, and osprey. These species were noted during the 
2009 qualitative surveys, as well (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Bog turtle . The bog turtle is a nongame species Federally-listed as threatened, New Jersey 
State-listed as endangered, and Delaware State-listed as endangered. Bog turtles inhabit fens, 
bogs, and wet meadows characterized by mucky, organic soil that remains saturated by 
groundwater. Plant communities in bog turtle habitat vary in species composition but are almost 
always dominated by low-growing grasses, sedges, rushes, ferns, scattered cattails, and forbs. 
Shrub and tree cover is typically low, and physical features of the habitat include spring-derived 
rivulets, shallow, mucky pools, and abundant sedge or moss-covered hummocks. Bog turtles 
spend much of their time hiding in cool, soft muck that provides cover and aids in 
thermoregulation during warm summer months. After emerging from subterranean hibernacula 
in the spring, they spend much of that season into early summer basking on hummocks and 
other areas. Mating occurs primarily in May and June. Females lay their eggs in drier areas of 
the marsh such as sedge and moss hummocks or rotted tree stumps. The diet of the bog turtle 
is mainly invertebrates, particularly slugs. They may also feed on carrion, small berries, sedge 
seeds, young cattail shoots, and duckweed. Once abundant throughout New Jersey, the bog 
turtle is now restricted to the remaining rural portions of the state, including Sussex, Warren, 
Hunterdon and Salem Counties. They require large contiguous areas of land for dispersal. 


November 2015 


2-67 


NUREG-2168 





Affected Environment 


Intense land uses impact bog turtle habitat through direct alteration of wetlands and secondary 
impacts such as stormwater inputs, water table drawdown and nutrient enrichment 
(NJDEP 2014-TN3287). 

The primary threats to bog turtle populations in New Jersey have been habitat loss due to 
natural succession, habitat fragmentation, and illegal collection. Vegetation succession has a 
negative impact on bog turtles by eliminating open areas, resulting in the reduction of suitable 
nesting sites and basking habitat. Important microclimates may also be eliminated and a 
monoculture created with the infiltration of invasive plant species such as Phragmites, reed 
canary grass, or purple loosestrife. Bog turtle colonies are isolated with habitat fragmentation, 
which has the potential to result in decreased genetic diversity and to impact the colonization of 
new sites. Bog turtles are also killed when trying to cross roadways that split wetlands 
(CWFNJ 2014-TN3288). 

The bog turtle was recorded historically for Artificial Island and vicinity during a study conducted 
between 1972 and 1978. There were no records for this species in the latest surveys conducted 
by PSEG in 2009 to 2010. Methods used for surveying reptiles and amphibians on the PSEG Site 
during 2009 to 2010 included general site reconnaissance and observation, evening anuran (frog) 
call surveys in the spring, and transect surveys along eight transects also used for bird and 
mammal surveys. Representative portions of the proposed causeway and areas adjacent to the 
existing access road were also surveyed qualitatively (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Sensitive joint-vetch . The sensitive joint-vetch (Aeschynomene virginica) is Federally-listed 
threatened. It is a member of the legume family that can grow up to 6 ft tall. It is an annual with 
yellow flowers that cluster on short lateral branches (FWS 2014-TN3319). Germination occurs 
in May to June, and it flowers from July to September and sometimes into October. 

Habitat for the sensitive joint-vetch includes intertidal zones that are fresh or slightly salty in 
areas with extensive marshes that are subject to two cycles of flooding a day (FWS 2014- 
TN3319). The sensitive joint-vetch prefers sediments that are bare or contain sparse vegetation 
along river banks within 6 ft of the low water mark. It can also occur in tidal marsh interiors, 
such as those associated with swales or areas of muskrat eat-out and accreting point bars. 

Sensitive joint-vetch is threatened by dredging and filling of marshes, dam construction, 
shoreline stabilization, commercial and residential development, sedimentation, impoundments, 
water withdrawal projects, invasive plants, introduced insect pests, pollution, recreational 
activities, agricultural activities, mining timber harvest, and saltwater intrusion due to sea-level 
rise (FWS 2014-TN3319). It is listed as historically occurring in the vicinity of the PSEG Site 
and may still be present. The 2009 survey did not indicate that it was present on the site or in 
the vicinity. 

Swamp pink . The swamp pink (Helonias bullata) is Federally-listed as threatened (FWS 2014- 
TN3320). It is a perennial member of the lily family with dark green leaves that are smooth and 
oblong and form an evergreen rosette at its base. The leaves can been seen year round. Its 
flower stalks can grow over 3 ft tall and are topped with a 1 to 3 in. long cluster of 30 to 50 small 
pink flowers with blue anthers. It flowers in the spring between March and May (FWS 2014- 
TN3321). 


NUREG-2168 


2-68 


November 2015 




Affected Environment 


Swamp pink is an obligate wetland species and occurs in a variety of palustrine forested 
wetlands with canopy closures of 20 to 100 percent. It can be found co-located with Atlantic 
white-cedar ( Chamaecyparis thyoides), red maple, pitch pine ( Pinus rigida), American larch 
{Larix laricina), black spruce ( Picea mariana), red spruce (P. rubens), sweet pepperbush 
( Clethra a Ini folia), sweetbay magnolia ( Magnolia virginiana), sphagnum mosses ( Sphagnum 
spp.), cinnamon fern ( Osmunda cinnamomea), skunk cabbage ( Symplocarpus foetidus), and 
laurels ( Kalmia spp.). Swamp pink is limited to wetlands that are perennially saturated, but not 
inundated, by flood waters. It prefers areas where the water table is at or near the surface with 
only slight fluctuations during the spring and summer, such as areas with groundwater seepage 
and lateral movement (FWS 2014-TN3321). 

The primary threats to this species are from pollution (such as sediment from construction), 
invasive species, and changes to the groundwater that could be caused by development or 
offsite activities. Other threats include wetland clearing, draining, and filling; collection; 
trampling; and climate change (FWS 2014-TN3321). 

It is known to or believed to occur in the following New Jersey counties: Atlantic, Burlington, 
Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, and 
Salem. In Delaware, swamp pink is known to or believed to occur in Kent, New Castle, and 
Sussex counties (FWS 2014-TN3321). Less than 1 percent of the PSEG Site contains habitat 
suitable to support swamp pink, and its occurrence was not noted in surveys conducted in 2009. 

Small whorled poqonia . The small whorled pogonia ( Isotria medeoloides) is Federally-listed as 
threatened. It is a perennial member of the orchid family that can grow 2 to 14 in. in height. It 
possesses a whorl of five or six milky green leaves near the top of the stem beneath a solitary 
or paired greenish-yellow flower. It blooms from May to June, and its capsule matures in the fall 
(FWS 2014-TN3322). 

The small whorled pogonia grows in a variety of habitats including upland, mid-successional, 
and wooded, usually with mixed-deciduous or mixed-deciduous/coniferous forests with canopy 
trees ranging from 40 to 75 years old. Canopy species in habitat preferred by small whorled 
pogonia consist of red maple, eastern hemlock ( Tsuga canadensis), northern red oak ( Quercias 
rubra), white oak ( Q. alba), black oak (Q. velutina), scarlet oak ( Q. coccinea), white pine ( Pinus 
strobus), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), sweet gum , and tulip poplar ( Liriodendron 
tuiipifera). Typically, the canopy trees are 8 to 18 in. in diameter. 

Small whorled pogonia prefers areas with sparse ground layer vegetation and acid dry soils that 
lie on a gentle slope. It is associated with the following ground layer species: partridge berry 
( Mitchella repens), Indian cucumber root ( Medeola virginiana), New York fern ( Theiypteris 
noveboracensis), sweet lowbush blueberry (Vacciniumpallidum), rattlesnake plantain 
( Goodyera pubescens), red maple seedlings, oak seedlings, Canada mayflower ( Maianthemum 
canadense), wintergreen ( Gauitheria procumbens), starflower ( Trientalis borealis), running 
cedar ( Lycopodium digitatum), Virginia creeper ( Padhenocissus guinguefolia), cat-brier ( Smilax 
glauca), and Christmas fern ( Polystichum acrostichoides) (FWS 2014-TN3322). 

The primary threat to the small whorled pogonia is habitat destruction. Other threats include 
collection, inadvertent damage, and recreation. It is not known or believed to occur in Salem 


November 2015 


2-69 


NUREG-2168 



Affected Environment 


County, and its nearest known location in New Jersey is Sussex County in the north 
(FWS 2014-TN3322). The PSEG Site lacks suitable habitat for the small whorled pogonia, and 
surveys conducted in 2009 did not reveal any on the site or the vicinity. It is listed as having the 
potential to occur in New Castle County, Delaware, which is within the 6 mi vicinity. 

Northern long-eared bat . The northern long-eared bat is listed Federally as threatened. The 
northern long-eared bat is distributed in 39 states, including New Jersey. Hibernacula are 
typically found in small crevices or cracks on cave or mine walls or ceilings, and seven known 
sites occur within New Jersey. Hibernacula used by northern long-eared bats are typically 
large, with large passages, constant cool temperatures, high humidity, and no air currents. 
Additionally, northern long-eared bats have been seen overwintering in railroad tunnels, storm 
sewer, and other unsuspected retreats. In the summer, northern long-eared bats roost 
underneath bark or in crevices or cavities of live trees and snags of various tree species. Tree 
species include black oak, northern red oak, silver maple (Acer saccharinum), black locust 
(Robinia pseudoacacia ), American beech, sugar maple (Acer saccharum), sourwood 
(Oxydendrum arboreum), and shortleaf pine ( Pinus echinata ). They also have been observed 
roosting in or under the eaves of human-made structures such as bams, buildings, sheds, and 
cabins. 

Northern long-eared bats are not a long-distance migratory species, and movements between 
summer and winter hibernacula are between 35 and 55 mi. Breeding occurs between late July 
and early October. Home ranges are approximately 46 to 425 ac for females and 161 ac for 
males. Northern long-eared bats emerge at dusk and fly along hillsides through forest 
understory gleaning insects from vegetation. Northern long-eared bats have a diverse diet of 
insects, most commonly beetles, moths, and arachnids. Mature forests are an important habitat 
for the northern long-eared bat’s foraging technique. The primary threat to the northern 
long-eared bat is attributed to white nose disease caused by the fungus Geomyces destructans 
(78 FR 61046-TN3207). 

Maternity roosts and hibernacula for the northern long-eared bat are known to occur in the 
following New Jersey counties: Atlantic, Bergen, Burlington, Camden, Hunterdon, Mercer, 
Morris, Ocean, Passaic, Salem. Somerset, Sussex, and Warren (FWS 2014-TN3208). No 
surveys were conducted on the PSEG Site for bats species. However, suitable habitat for 
hibernacula and maternity roosts and habitat important for foraging does not exist on the PSEG 
Site. Northern long-eared bat are known to occur in the northern and central portions of Salem 
County, New Jersey, within the PSEG Site 6-mi vicinity (78 FR 61046-TN3207). 

Rufa red knot . The rufa red knot is Federally listed as threatened, New Jersey State-listed as 
endangered, and Delaware State-listed as endangered. Rufa red knots are 9 to 11 in. in length 
and considered a medium-sized shorebird (79 FR 73705-TN4267). 

Rufa red knots migrate annually between their breeding grounds in the Canadian Arctic and 
wintering locations in the southeastern United States, northeastern Gulf of Mexico, northern 
Brazil, and Tierra del Fuego (located on the southern tip of Argentina). Refa red knots use the 
Delaware Bay as a final stopover for migrations to breeding grounds in the spring. 


NUREG-2168 


2-70 


November 2015 







Affected Environment 


Rufa red knots are found primarily on beaches of sand or peat at the mouths of tidal creeks, 
along the edge of tidal marshes dominated by salt marsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) and 
saltmeadow cordgrass (S. patens), and in salt pannes (i.e., shallow, high salinity, mud-bottomed 
depressions on the marsh surface) and shallow coastal ponds or embayments. Radio tracking 
has shown that rufa red knots usually roost along the shoreline or in sandy washovers above 
the high tide line; however, they also roost in bare, shallow-water openings 0.5 to 1.3 mi (850 to 
2,050 m) inland in adjacent salt marsh. The preference for inland roost sites is greater at night 
and during spring tides, and Delaware Bay is the only area in which rufa red knots have been 
observed roosting inland. 

Rufa red knots must take advantage of seasonally abundant food resources at migration 
stopovers to build up fat reserves for the next leg of migration. Delaware Bay serves as a 
seasonal migration stopover for rufa red knots due to the abundance of horseshoe crab eggs. 

The primary threats to rufa red knot populations along the Delaware Bay include sea-level rise, 
shoreline stabilization, and coastal development. The rufa red knot is not known to, or believed 
to, occur in Salem County, New Jersey. The nearest known occurrence of the rufa red knot is in 
adjacent counties (i.e., Cumberland County, New Jersey and Kent County, Delaware). The 
PSEG Site does not contain suitable habitat to support migrating rufa red knots. The rufa red 
knot was not recorded in the 2009 to 2010 field surveys (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Further 
horseshoe crabs have not been reported in the Delaware Estuary waters near the PSEG Site or 
in offsite small and large marsh creeks near the PSEG Site (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005- 
TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009- 
TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571; PSEG 2013-TN2586). 

Northern goshawk . The northern goshawk (Accipitergentilis) is New Jersey State-listed as 
endangered for breeding population and special concern for nonbreeding population. It is listed 
because of the limitation of habitat available for breeding (NJDEP 2012-TN3247). 

Northern goshawks nest in mature, contiguous forests away from human activity and 
development. They may also nest in wooded swamps, lower gentle slopes, or flat areas at 
higher elevations. Nests may be located in either deciduous or coniferous trees, although 
deciduous trees are used more frequently in New Jersey (NJDEP 2012-TN3247). Northern 
goshawks breed in areas with large-sized trees, a closed canopy, and an open understory 
(PSEG 2012-TN2389). 

Outside the breeding season, goshawks frequent a wider variety of habitat types. In migration 
and during winter, they may forage in mature as well as young woods, scrubby areas, and tree 
lines along marshes or open fields. Forested areas are favored for roosting because they 
provide protection against the weather. The greatest threat to the northern goshawk is habitat 
destruction (NJDEP 2012-TN3247). Northern goshawks have been reported in the project 
vicinity during recent (2008 to 2009) Audubon Society Annual Christmas Bird Counts for Salem 
County (PSEG 2015-TN4280; Audubon 2013-TN2414). The northern goshawk may use the 
PSEG Site and vicinity periodically for foraging during migration or during the winter. 

Grasshopper Sparrow . The grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) is New Jersey 
State-listed as threatened for the breeding population and special concern for the nonbreeding 


November 2015 


2-71 


NUREG-2168 





Affected Environment 


population. Preferred habitat for the grasshopper sparrow consists of short to medium bunch 
grasses interspersed with bare ground, shallow litter layer, scattered forbs, and few shrubs 
(CWFNJ 2012-TN3248). 

Grasshopper sparrows prefer to nest in open habitats including agricultural lands and airports 
that contain suitable habitat. These sparrows breed in grasslands, upland meadows, pastures, 
hay fields, and old field habitats. They may use small grassland, but they prefer areas greater 
than 99 ac. Nests are constructed by the females near the base of a clump of grass in a 
shallow depression. Habitat loss is the primary threat to the grasshopper sparrow 
(CWFNJ 2012-TN3248). 

One grasshopper sparrow was observed in the vicinity of the PSEG Site in the spring during the 
2009 to 2010 PSEG survey. Grasshopper sparrows have also been reported in the USGS 
North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) bird count (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The PSEG Site 
provides some limited habitat for this species, with some higher quality habitat present in the 
vicinity of the site. 

Cattle egret . The cattle egret is New Jersey State-listed as threatened for the breeding 
population and special concern for the nonbreeding population. Cattle egrets are very common 
around the United States and the world, but changes in land use from livestock operations have 
caused their population to decline in New Jersey. This species of egret prefers to forage and 
roost in agricultural fields and pastures and nest in mixed species colonies on marsh islands 
(NJDEP 2012-TN3249). 

Cattle egrets were observed in fairly good numbers in the vicinity of the PSEG Site during the 
2009 to 2010 PSEG survey, mainly in the spring and fall. They also were recorded during the 
BBS (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The PSEG Site may provide limited foraging habitat for this 
species, with higher quality foraging habitat being present in the site vicinity. 

Red-shouldered hawk . The red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) is New Jersey State-listed as 
endangered for breeding population and special concern for nonbreeding population. Red¬ 
shouldered hawks prefer wetland forests as well as uplands, fragmented woods, small forests, 
open areas, and edges (NJDEP 2014-TN3254). 

Their nesting habitat includes deciduous, coniferous, and mixed woodland remote old growth 
forests with standing water, closed upper canopies, and open subcanopies. They nest in large 
deciduous trees and sometimes coniferous trees. Nesting habitats in southern New Jersey 
include hardwood or mixed hardwood/cedar swamps containing red maple, black gum (Nyssa 
sylvatica), sassafras (Sassafras albidum ), sweetbay magnolia, and Atlantic white cedar. They 
require large continuous wooded tracts for breeding, typically 270 to 838 ac for the eastern 
populations, with average distances of about 0.75 to 1.0 mi between nests. Habitat loss is the 
primary threat to red-shouldered hawks (NJDEP 2014-TN3254). 

No red-shouldered hawks were observed during the 2009 to 2010 field survey. However, they 
have been identified near the site during recent (2009 to 2010) Audubon Society Annual 
Christmas Bird Counts for Salem County (PSEG 2015-TN4280; Audubon 2013-TN2414). 

This species was also recorded during past work conducted in the Alloway Creek watershed 


NUREG-2168 


2-72 


November 2015 




Affected Environment 


(PSEG 2004-TN2897). The PSEG Site and vicinity provides foraging habitat for this species, 
while larger wooded areas in the vicinity provide potential nesting habitat. Preferred nesting 
habitat is not available on the PSEG Site. 

Northern harrier . The northern harrier is New Jersey State-listed as endangered for the 
breeding population and special concern for the nonbreeding population and Delaware 
State-listed as endangered. Northern harriers prefer open tidal marshes, emergent wetlands, 
fallow fields, grasslands, meadows, airports, and agricultural areas. Northern harriers will build 
nests in brackish or saline marshes along the Delaware Bay shores in salt hay ( Spartina 
patens ), marsh elder (Iva frutescens), or reed grass ( Phragmites communis). They will also 
nest in freshwater tidal marshes containing common reed or sedges. However, common reed 
makes for poor foraging habitat because of the thick stands it forms (NJDEP 2014-TN3255). 

Habitat loss is the greatest threat to northern harriers in New Jersey (NJDEP 2014-TN3255). 
The PSEG Site does contain marsh habitat that may provide nesting and foraging habitat for the 
northern harrier. During the 2009 to 2010 field survey, northern harriers were commonly 
observed in all seasons. Sightings were near open areas, both on the site and in the vicinity. 
They were observed foraging above the marsh. Although northern harriers were not confirmed 
nesting on the site or in the vicinity, they are ground nesters and could potentially nest near the 
study area. The northern harrier was also identified near the PSEG Site during BBS and recent 
(2005 to 2010) Audubon Society Annual Christmas Bird Counts for Salem County (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280; Audubon 2013-TN2414). This species was also recorded during past work conducted 
in the Alloway Creek watershed (PSEG 2004-TN2897). 

Bobolink . The bobolink ( Dolichonyx oryzivorus) is New Jersey State-listed as threatened for the 
breeding population and special concern for the nonbreeding population. In 1979, the bobolink 
was listed by the State of New Jersey as threatened because of population decline and habitat 
loss. During the breeding season (early summer), bobolinks frequent low-intensity agricultural 
areas, including hayfields and pastures. They also may be found in fallow fields and meadows 
that contain grasses, forbs, and wildflowers. The highest densities of bobolinks are found in 
larger fields; however, they may also nest in smaller fields of 5 to 10 ac. Following the breeding 
season in late June to early July, bobolinks frequent freshwater and coastal marshes where 
they will stay for several weeks while molting. A second influx of migrating bobolinks occurs 
along the Atlantic and Delaware Bay coasts in late August (CWFNJ 2012-TN3271). 

Females will choose the nest site, which is established on the ground near a large clump of 
grass. Bobolinks winter in South America. The greatest threat to the bobolink is the loss of 
preferred habitat such as agricultural fields (CWFNJ 2012-TN3271). One bobolink was 
observed on the site in the spring during the 2009 to 2010 PSEG survey (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 
Bobolink nesting habitat is not available on the PSEG Site. 

Horned lark . The horned lark ( Eremophila alpestris) is New Jersey State-listed as threatened 
for breeding population and special concern for nonbreeding population. This is the only true 
lark native to the New World (CWFNJ 2012-TN3256). 

Horned larks prefer open habitats with short, sparse grasses and wildflowers, bare ground, and 
few shrubs. They will leave sites as vegetation becomes denser. Horned larks have become 


November 2015 


2-73 


NUREG-2168 





Affected Environment 


increasingly localized in New Jersey. They are most common in the Wallkill River Valley, parts 
of Warren, Salem, and Cumberland counties, and Lakehurst Naval Station in Ocean County. 
They will frequent mowed areas around airstrips where suitable agricultural and nonforested 
habitats are rare (CWFNJ 2012-TN3256). 

Horned larks eat mostly weed seeds, grass seeds, and waste grains. Young are fed insects, 
and adults also eat some insects, such as grasshoppers, caterpillars, ants, and wasps 
(CWFNJ 2012-TN3256). They also may eat snails, fruits, and berries (PSEG 2012-TN2389). 

The horned lark is one of the earliest birds to nest, with males establishing territories in January 
and February. Females build nests in small depressions on the bare ground next to bunch 
grasses or other plants, and nests are lined with fine plant materials. The greatest threats to the 
horned lark include loss of habitat and native plant species (CWFNJ 2012-TN3256). 

One horned lark was observed in the vicinity of the PSEG Site in the spring during the 2009 to 
2010 PSEG survey. Horned larks also have been reported in the BBS and during recent 
(2008 to 2010) Audubon Society Annual Christmas Bird Counts for Salem County (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280; Audubon 2013-TN2414). The PSEG Site provides some limited habitat for this 
species, with some higher quality habitat present in the vicinity of the site. 

Peregrine falcon . The peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) is New Jersey State-listed as 
endangered for the breeding population, and special concern for the nonbreeding population. 
Historically, peregrine falcon nest sites were restricted to cliffs and rock outcroppings. With 
increased human development, they began to nest on human-made structures. There are no 
remaining peregrine falcon cliff nests in New Jersey. Artificial nest platforms were erected 
during the days of peregrine population recovery, and these platforms are still used today. 
Peregrines favor open areas for foraging and frequently hunt over marshes, beaches, or open 
water (NJDEP 2014-TN3316). 

They feed mainly on birds, including passerines and small geese. They occasionally eat 
mammals and rarely eat amphibians, fish, or insects (White et al. 2002-TN3329). Peregrine 
falcons have been reported in the PSEG Site vicinity during recent (2005 to 2006) Audubon 
Society Annual Christmas Bird Counts for Salem County (PSEG 2015-TN4280; Audubon 2013- 
TN2414). The main threats to the peregrine falcon are chemical contaminants such as PCBs 
and predation from other species such as the great horned owl (Bubo virginianus) 

(NJDEP 2014-TN3316). 

American kestrel . The American kestrel (Falco sparverius) is New Jersey State-listed as 
threatened for both breeding and nonbreeding populations. American kestrels frequent large, 
open areas with low vegetation and are, therefore, attracted to managed areas such as farms, 
parks, and pastures. Habitat preferences vary between sexes outside the breeding season, 
with males preferring more forested areas and females still preferring areas that are more open. 
Kestrels hunt from available perches (branches, utility lines, etc.) or hover, preying on insects, 
reptiles, mice, voles, and sometimes birds (NJDEP 2012-TN3257). 

Kestrels are secondary cavity nesters, utilizing natural cavities and woodpecker holes. They will 
also use nesting opportunities provided by man, including cavities in the eaves of buildings and 


NUREG-2168 


2-74 


November 2015 




Affected Environment 


barns, and nest boxes. These provide important nesting space for kestrels impacted by snag 
removal and competition from other species (e.g., squirrels and European starlings). The lack 
of suitable nest sites is one theory for the decline of kestrel numbers in recent years. Kestrel 
numbers are particularly experiencing declines in the northeast where lack of nesting sites is 
thought to be a factor. The shift away from farmland to development and reforestation is a 
contributing factor to habitat loss. Critical habitat disappears as urban and suburban 
development fragment large open areas into smaller patches. The increase in raptor species 
including Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks may be another factor for the decline. Presence 
of West Nile virus in this species may also be a concern. Fortunately, nest box programs have 
been successful in providing viable nesting habitat (NJDEP 2012-TN3257). 

American kestrels have been reported in the PSEG Site vicinity by BBS and during recent 
(2005 to 2010) Audubon Society Annual Christmas Bird Counts for Salem County (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280; Audubon 2013-TN2414). This species was also recorded during past work conducted 
in the Alloway Creek watershed (PSEG 2004-TN2897). 

Bald eagle . The bald eagle is New Jersey State-listed as endangered for the breeding population 
and as threatened for the nonbreeding population and Delaware State-listed as endangered. It 
was removed from the Federal endangered species list in 2007. However, it is still protected 
Federally under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668 et seq. -TN1447). By 
1970, only one bald eagle nest remained in New Jersey, and the species was listed as 
endangered. Bald eagles reside year-round in New Jersey and typically remain in the vicinity of 
their nest site. The largest concentration of bald eagles is along the Delaware Bay in Salem and 
Cumberland counties. Bald eagles also are present in central and northern New Jersey near 
lakes, reservoirs, and rivers. They may move southward in winter from the northern parts of their 
range and may stop over in New Jersey. During the January 2008 midwinter eagle survey, 

264 bald eagles were recorded in New Jersey; this was the highest count since surveys began in 
1978 (CWFNJ 2012-TN3258). 

Bald eagles roost in forested areas but forage near water bodies in areas such as rivers, lakes, 
and marshes. They nest in the tops of large, mature trees and typically use the same nests 
year after year. Juvenile birds generally leave the area in late August and may winter in the 
Chesapeake Bay area, where open water and food are abundant (PSEG 2015-TN4280; 

CWFNJ 2012-TN3258). 

Because of their large size, bald eagles require a large foraging area. The main prey for bald 
eagles is fish, but they are opportunistic and also will feed on waterfowl, turtles, rabbits, snakes, 
muskrats, other small animals, and carrion (PSEG 2015-TN4280; CWFNJ 2012-TN3258). Bald 
eagles use a sit-and-watch foraging behavior from large perch trees near water. In New Jersey, 
ideal locations for foraging are the Delaware River, Delaware Bay, and associated tidal marshes 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

During the 2009 to 2010 field survey, bald eagles were occasionally observed flying on the site 
and perched along the Delaware River at the south end of the PSEG Site during all seasons. 
Bald eagle use of the PSEG Site is most likely for foraging. Bald eagles have been recorded in 
recent years (2005 to 2010) near the site during the Audubon Society Annual Christmas Bird 
Count for Salem County (PSEG 2015-TN4280; Audubon 2013-TN2414). In nesting surveys 


November 2015 


2-75 


NUREG-2168 



Affected Environment 


conducted annually by the NJDEP, during the five-year span from 2004 to 2008, bald eagles 
had nested within a 6-mi radius of the PSEG Site. Two nests were confirmed (one near the 
town of Elsinboro, and the other along Alloway Creek) (PSEG 2015-TN4280). This species was 
also recorded during past work conducted in the Alloway Creek watershed (PSEG 2004- 
TN2897). 

Red-headed woodpecker . The red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus) was 
listed in New Jersey in 1979 as threatened for both breeding and nonbreeding populations. The 
decline of red-headed woodpeckers is a result of mortality from vehicle collisions, competition 
with the European starling for nesting sites, harvesting of feathers for hats, and killing by 
farmers because of damage to fruit and berry crops. Red-headed woodpecker habitat includes 
open woods, deciduous forests, forest edges, river bottoms, orchards, grasslands with scattered 
trees, and clearings. They prefer areas with dead or dying trees that provide cavities for nesting 
and sparse undergrowth to facilitate foraging (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Red-headed woodpeckers have an omnivorous diet consisting of insects, spiders, worms, nuts, 
seeds, berries, fruit, and occasionally small mammals. They may also eat the young and eggs 
of bluebirds, house sparrows, and chickadees. They search for food from either a perch or the 
ground. Much of the food found by red-headed woodpeckers is stored in existing natural or 
human-made cavities or crevices. No red-headed woodpeckers were observed during the 2009 
to 2010 field survey, nor have they been reported in the BBS or the Audubon Society Annual 
Christmas Bird Counts for Salem County. Suitable nesting habitat for the red-headed 
woodpecker is not available on the PSEG Site (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Black-crowned night-heron . The black-crowned night-heron is New Jersey State-listed as 
threatened for the breeding population and as special concern for the nonbreeding population. 
The black-crowned night-heron was a historically common breeding species along the New 
Jersey coast. The population decline is attributed to habitat destruction, disturbance of nesting 
colonies, and contaminants (NJDEP 2012-TN3259). 

Nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat for black-crowned night-herons includes forests, 
shrub/scrub, marshes, and ponds. Heronries may be located in wooded swamps, coastal dune 
forests, vegetated dredge spoil islands, scrub thickets, or mixed Phragmites marshes that are 
close to water. Black-crowned night-herons forage in marshes and along pond edges and 
creeks. Shallow tidal pools, tidal channels, mudflats, and vegetated marsh also provide 
foraging habitat in coastal salt marshes (NJDEP 2012-TN3259). 

The black-crowned night-heron is an opportunistic feeder that prefers foraging in shallow water. 
The diet of this species consists primarily of fish; the diet also may include leeches, earthworms, 
and aguatic and terrestrial insects. These herons also eat crayfish, mussels, sguid, amphibians, 
lizards, snakes, rodents, birds, eggs, carrion, plant materials, and garbage and refuse from 
landfills (PSEG 2012-TN1489). 

Black-crowned night-herons were observed in low numbers in the vicinity of the site along 
Alloway and Hope Creeks in spring and summer during the 2009 to 2010 PSEG survey. They 
were also recorded during BBS (PSEG 2015-TN4280). This species also was recorded during 
past work conducted in the Alloway Creek watershed (PSEG 2004-TN2897). 


NUREG-2168 


2-76 


November 2015 




Affected Environment 


Osprey . The osprey is New Jersey State-listed as threatened for the breeding population. The 
loss of nesting sites and contamination of food by persistent pesticides (mainly DDT) caused the 
decline of this species in New Jersey and throughout the eastern United States. Nest platforms 
have been installed by PSEG in the ACW Site as part of the PSEG EEP program (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280). 

Ospreys frequent areas in close proximity to water including coastal rivers, marshes, bays, and 
inlets, as well as inland rivers and lakes. Ospreys nest on live or dead trees, human-made 
nesting platforms, light poles, channel markers, abandoned duck blinds, and other artificial 
structures close to water offering unobstructed views of the surrounding area. The osprey’s 
acceptance and use of these artificial nesting sites has played a key role in the recovery of this 
species (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Ospreys in New Jersey arrive on their breeding grounds in late 
March. Nests are constructed of sticks and lined with softer vegetation. Breeding begins in 
April or May. Ospreys leave New Jersey for their wintering grounds in late August to early 
September (PSEG 2015-TN4280; CWFNJ 2012-TN3260). 

Ospreys in New Jersey nest along the Atlantic Coast from Sandy Hook to Cape May and 
on the Delaware Bay and River in Cumberland, Salem, and Gloucester counties. In addition, 
reintroduction efforts on northern New Jersey lakes have resulted in ospreys nesting along 
the upper Delaware River (CWFNJ 2012-TN3260). 

The osprey’s main diet consists of fish. Ospreys are opportunistic and will eat whatever fish 
species are accessible. However, given the abundance of fish in a given area, their diet may 
consist of only two to three species. Ospreys hunt for prey while in flight (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

During the 2009 to 2010 field survey, ospreys were occasionally observed in the spring and 
summer both on the site and in the vicinity of the PSEG Site. Active osprey nests were 
observed on transmission towers along the current PSEG access road from the plant north 
toward Money Island Road. Nests were also observed on human-made nesting platforms along 
Alloway Creek. Ospreys have also been identified near the site in the BBS. In an osprey 
nesting and productivity study conducted annually (beginning in 2006) by the New Jersey 
Division of Fish and Wildlife, it was reported that the number of young per nest in the Salem 
County-Artificial Island area has averaged between 1.7 and 2.0 birds from 2006 to 2008. 
Additionally, The Nature Conservancy has conducted an annual nesting and productivity study 
on PSEG EEP wetland restoration sites since 1999. The Alloway Creek wetland restoration site 
is the only site within the 6-mi vicinity of the PSEG Site. Nesting platforms have been monitored 
at this wetland site since 2001, and the number of young per nest has ranged from zero to three 
for 2001 to 2009. There are four nesting platforms on the ACW Site. The number of active 
nests each year has varied (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Savannah Sparrow . The savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis) is New Jersey State- 
listed as threatened for the breeding population. This species breeds in the ridge and valley 
and highlands regions of northern New Jersey and in the inner coastal plain of southwestern 
New Jersey. The savannah sparrow is a common migrant through New Jersey from mid- 
September through early November in the fall and from mid-March through late April in the 
spring. This sparrow is an uncommon winter resident seen in small flocks along the coast, 
inland grasslands, and fields (CWFNJ 2012-TN3261). 


November 2015 


2-77 


NUREG-2168 




Affected Environment 


Savannah sparrows nest in a variety of open habitats. For a field to be suitable for savannah 
sparrows, it must include a mix of short and tall grasses, a thick litter layer, dense ground 
vegetation, and scattered shrubs, saplings, or forbs. Savannah sparrows require large 
grasslands of approximately 20 to 40 ac. Near the ocean they may also frequent tidal salt 
marshes and estuaries. Savannah sparrows depend on seasonally abundant food sources. 
During the nesting season, savannah sparrows feed on invertebrates such as insects, larvae, 
and caterpillars. In coastal areas, they may eat tiny crustaceans. The young are fed 
invertebrates, along with fruit and berries. A cup nest constructed by the female is concealed by 
vegetation in a slight depression on the ground. The nest is located in clumps of grass or at the 
base of a shrub and is woven of thick grasses and lined with thinner grasses (CWFNJ 2012- 
TN3261). 

Habitat loss and modern agricultural practices are a threat to nesting savannah sparrows in 
New Jersey. The amount of suitable habitat has experienced a reduction with the decline in 
farming, succession, and the development of open space (CWFNJ 2012-TN3261). Two 
savannah sparrows were observed on the site in the spring during the 2009 to 2010 PSEG 
survey. They have also been reported during recent (2009 to 2010) Audubon Society Annual 
Christmas Bird Counts for Salem County (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Pied-billed grebe . The pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps) is New Jersey State-listed as 
endangered for breeding population and as special concern for nonbreeding population and 
Delaware State-listed as endangered for breeding population. There are only two known 
breeding sites in New Jersey. The New Jersey Natural Heritage Program considers the pied¬ 
billed grebe to be “critically imperiled in New Jersey” (NJDEP 2012-TN3262). 

The greatest threats to pied-billed grebe populations in New Jersey are habitat degradation and 
destruction resulting from the draining, dredging, filling, pollution, and siltation of wetlands. The 
breeding habitat for this species (palustrine emergent wetlands, inland wetlands such as 
marshes and swamps without flowing water, and less than 0.5 percent ocean-derived salinity) is 
one of the most threatened wetland types in the United States. Pied-billed grebes nest in 
freshwater marshes associated with ponds, bogs, lakes, reservoirs, or slow moving rivers and, 
infrequently, in coastal estuaries that receive minimal tidal fluctuations. These grebes typically 
frequent areas with emergent or aquatic vegetation, which provides good locations for nesting 
sites. Nests float and are anchored to marsh vegetation in shallow water. Clutch sizes range 
from 2 to 10 eggs, with an incubation period of 23 to 27 days. The breeding season starts in 
April and runs through October. They frequent a greater variety of habitats outside the breeding 
season, including brackish marshes, estuaries, inlets, tidal creeks, and coastal bays. Pied-billed 
grebes eat small fish, crustaceans, and aquatic insects and their larvae (NJDEP 2012-TN3262; 
PSEG 2012-TN2389). 

The PSEG Site does contain marshes that may be suitable for nesting pied-billed grebes. 
However, pied-billed grebes were not observed during the 2009 to 2010 PSEG survey. They 
have been recorded in low numbers during Audubon Society Annual Christmas Bird Counts for 
Salem County (2006 to 2007 and 2008 to 2009) (PSEG 2015-TN4280; Audubon 2013-TN2414). 

Eastern tiger salamander . The eastern tiger salamander is New Jersey State-listed as 
endangered and Delaware State-listed as endangered. Tiger salamanders are the largest 


NUREG-2168 


2-78 


November 2015 




Affected Environment 


salamander species in New Jersey. Life requirements include both upland and wetland habitat 
that contain ponds suitable for breeding, forested areas, and soil types that allow burrowing 
(loamy sand and sandy loams are preferred). Tiger salamanders remain underground much of 
the year in tunnels and burrows or under logs. They emerge from their burrows from late 
October to March during mild temperatures and rain that trigger nocturnal movement. Most 
juvenile tiger salamanders will emerge in July and disperse to underground tunnels and 
burrows. With the loss of natural breeding ponds, tiger salamanders have used gravel pits and 
farm ponds. Ponds must have clean water and be free of fish that prey on salamander eggs 
and larvae. Tiger salamanders require ponds that hold water long enough for metamorphosis 
to be completed, yet have a dry period that will prevent predatory fish from inhabiting the pond. 
Therefore, breeding ponds are usually only two to four feet deep (CWFNJ 2012-TN3263). 

Terrestrial habitats that may be frequented by tiger salamanders include old fields and 
deciduous or mixed woodlands (e.g., oak and pine or oak and holly). Vegetation around the 
ponds, including sedges and sphagnum moss, and aquatic vegetation in the pond itself provide 
cover for these salamanders. Losses of habitat and pond pollution have led to tiger salamander 
declines in New Jersey. High road mortality while crossing roads to breeding ponds is also a 
significant impact. The New Jersey Natural Heritage Program considers this species to be 
imperiled in New Jersey because of rarity. The tiger salamander has avoided localized 
extinction because it has the ability to use human-made pools for breeding ponds. Surveys of 
this species conducted in 1995 revealed that the tiger salamander occurred at only a limited 
number of sites in Atlantic and Cumberland Counties (CWFNJ 2012-TN3263). The eastern 
tiger salamander was not observed on the site or in the vicinity during the 2009 to 2010 PSEG 
survey. However, tiger salamanders were recorded during an ecological survey conducted on 
Artificial Island from 1972 through 1978 (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Important Habitats 

No areas on the PSEG Site are Federally designated as critical habitat for any Federally-listed 
threatened or endangered species. This section includes important wetlands, wildlife 
sanctuaries, refuges, and preserves. 

Wetlands 


Activities including the discharge of dredge or fill materials into waters of the United States, 
including wetlands, require permit authorization from the USACE under Section 404 of the CWA 
(33 USC 1251 et seq. -TN662). Additionally, the USACE regulates any work or structures 
affecting navigable waters of the United States, including wetlands, under Section 10 of the 
Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act (33 USC 403 et seq. -TN660). NJDEP regulates coastal 
wetlands under the New Jersey Wetlands Act of 1970 (NJSA 13:9A et seq. -TN3361), and 
freshwater wetlands are regulated under the New Jersey Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act 
(NJAC 7:7A-TH4284) (PSEG 2012-TN2389). 

PSEG submitted an application for line verification to NJDEP for the PSEG Site. Additionally, 
PSEG submitted a Jurisdictional Determination Request to the USACE to clarify the USACE’s 
jurisdiction on the USACE’s 85-ac CDF facility immediately north of the PSEG Site. As part of 
its request, PSEG submitted results of jurisdictional wetland delineation conducted in 


November 2015 


2-79 


NUREG-2168 




Affected Environment 


accordance with procedures identified in the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating 
Jurisdictional Wetlands (USACE et al. 1989-TN4285) and Corps of Engineers Wetland 
Delineation Manual (USACE 1987-TN2066) at the PSEG Site. Freshwater wetland complexes 
were identified, flagged, and surveyed. Hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland 
hydrology were identified and described at each of the data collection points. Additionally, 

PSEG submitted a description of the 85-ac CDF facility along with interpretation of USACE 
Regulatory Guidance and descriptions of the CDF hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydric 
soil to support wetland determination (PSEG 2012-TN2389). 

A total of 39 Federal jurisdictional freshwater wetland units covering approximately 158.7 ac 
were identified by the USACE in a letter dated February 24, 2014, to PSEG (USACE 2014- 
TN3282). These areas were identified as Block 26, lots 2, 4, 4.01, 5, and 5.01 in Lower 
Alloways Creek Township, Salem County, New Jersey. Any proposal to perform work, build 
structures, or discharge dredge or fill material into the identified areas would require prior 
approval from the Philadelphia District USACE. Figure 2-6 depicts the jurisdictional wetlands 
(considered important terrestrial habitat) on the PSEG Site. The printed version of this figure 
may not be legible; however, the electronic version is viewable when zoomed in. Figure 2-6 
includes wetlands mapped by NJDEP (coastal wetlands) and those delineated on the site as 
part of the site (USACE CDF facility, PSEG desilt basin, and freshwater wetlands). A total of 
164.9 ac of coastal wetlands and 158.68 ac of freshwater wetlands have been mapped on the 
PSEG Site (PSEG 2015-TN4280; USACE 2014-TN3282). The 39 units were individually 
identified as Al, AA, B1, BB, CC, CDF3, D, D1, Dla, Dlb, Die, Did, DD, E, F, FI, G, G1, H, 

HI, I, II, J, K, L, N, O, 01, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, and Z. The USACE jurisdictional 
freshwater wetlands located in unit CDF3 were identified during a site investigation on 
December 5, 2013. The remaining USACE jurisdictional wetland units were included in the 
NJDEP line verification (USACE 2014-TN3282). 

Most of the PSEG Site is surrounded by tidal marsh dominated by near monocultures of the 
invasive common reed. This is also the case for most of the tidal marsh surrounding Hope 
Creek, Alloway Creek, and associated smaller marsh creeks. Most of the coastal wetlands 
occur within the northern portion of the PSEG Site and connect to the contiguous Alloway Creek 
and Hope Creek coastal wetland systems (marshes) (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

The eastern portion of the PSEG Site contains primarily freshwater wetlands dominated by 
monocultures of Phragmites. They are predominantly tidal wetland systems that are contiguous 
with coastal wetlands mapped by the New Jersey Wetlands Act of 1970 (NJSA 13:9A et seq. - 
TN3361). Functionally, these wetlands are similar to the coastal wetlands and are tidally 
influenced systems. Some areas on Artificial Island, such as the CDF and the PSEG Site desilt 
basins, have been diked and are no longer tidally influenced (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

The PSEG EEP manages the ACW Site just north of Alloway Creek. The restoration program 
has successfully restored several common reed-dominated wetlands with Spartina alterniflora, 
Spartina cynosuroides, Spartina patens , Persicaria hydropiper , and Sagittaria latifolia as part of 
the program since 1995, encompassing an area of more than 14,550 ac throughout the 
Delaware River Estuary in New Jersey and Delaware in accordance with site-specific 
NJDEP-approved management plans. Common reed communities are treated using herbicides, 
or tidal exchange is reestablished that allows native marsh species (e.g., saltmarsh cordgrass) 


NUREG-2168 


2-80 


November 2015 



Affected Environment 


to repopulate the wetland sites. Monitoring is conducted in accordance with an NJDEP 
approved Improved Biological Monitoring Work Plan program. Each site is monitored yearly to 
ensure a successful restoration (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Restoration programs such as the 
Alloway Creek program could increase the functionality of degraded wetlands. 

Wildlife Sanctuaries, Refuges, and Preserves 

There are numerous wildlife sanctuaries, refuges, and preserves within the Atlantic Coastal 
Plains Ecoregion. In Delaware, portions of three counties within the Atlantic Coastal Plains 
Ecoregion include two National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) (Bombay Hook and Prime Hook, with 
a combined 25,978 ac) and 12 state parks (totaling 7,469 ac). New Castle County in Delaware 
has 11 state parks totaling 7,403 ac (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The Delaware Wildlife Action Plan 
(DNREC 2006-TN2899) identifies Key Wildlife Habitats in the vicinity of the PSEG Site. These 
areas are identified as Key Wildlife Habitats either because they have the potential to support a 
high diversity of Species of Greatest Conservation Need or they are part of a large 
complex/block capable of supporting an array of plant and animal species. Key Wildlife Habitats 
documented in the vicinity of the site include chestnut oak-hairgrass forest, early successional 
habitats, impoundments, mixed broadleaf freshwater tidal marshes, Spartina high salt marshes, 
and unvegetated intertidal mudflats and wetlands (DNREC 2006-TN2899). 

Portions of seven counties in Maryland fall within the Atlantic Coastal Plains Ecoregion. This 
area includes two NWRs (Susquehanna and Eastern Neck), one national trust, three private 
parks, and six state parks. A total of 39,711 ac of recreational lands occur in these seven 
Maryland counties (PSEG 2012-TN1489). 

New Jersey has the largest land area within the Atlantic Coastal Plains Ecoregion dedicated to 
recreational use (217,197 ac). These lands include two NWRs (Cape May and Supawna 
Meadows), which together total 15,600 ac. Other recreational resources in New Jersey within 
the 50 mi radius include three land trusts (8,365 ac) and eight state parks (193,231 ac). The 
National Park Service (NPS) has designated a 300-mi-long area along the coastline as the New 
Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail extending from Deepwater on the Delaware River to Raritan Bay 
on the Atlantic Ocean. Within the four-county region in New Jersey, Cumberland County has 
7,756 ac committed to two natural land trusts (Glades Wildlife Refuge and Peak Reserve). 

Salem County has 17,775 ac that are mainly associated with the Supawna Meadows NWR 
(4,600 ac), four state parks (12,566 ac), the Burdon Hill Preserve (609 ac), Mad Horse Creek 
WMA (9,498 ac), and Abbott Meadows (1,011 ac). A portion of the Delsea Region of the New 
Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail is located in Salem and Cumberland Counties, including a 
welcome center at Fort Mott State Park (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Pennsylvania has the lowest amount of acreage dedicated to recreational land within the 
Atlantic Coastal Plains Ecoregion. For the eight Pennsylvania counties, there are 17,775 ac of 
recreational land within the Atlantic Coastal Plains Ecoregion. This includes 200 ac of the John 
Heinz NWR at Tinicum; 3,500 ac at Valley Forge National Historical Park; 9,718 ac within 
six state parks; and 4,357 ac within 17 land trusts (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Figure 2-7 in Section 2.2 shows WMAs and other wildlife areas within a 6-mi radius of the PSEG 
Site. The following is a brief discussion of those areas: 


November 2015 


2-81 


NUREG-2168 






Affected Environment 


Cedar Swamp Wildlife Area (Delaware) . Cedar Swamp Wildlife Area, managed by the 
Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife, consists of four large land tracts totaling over 5,500 ac of 
wilderness near Townsend, Delaware, and the mouth of Delaware Bay. The site offers wildlife 
watching and hunting opportunities, including waterfowl hunting, deer hunting (including 
categories for firearms, archery, and disabled hunters), and small game hunting opportunities 
(EcoDelaware 2014-TN3265; DNREC 2012-TN3264). 

Augustine Wildlife Area (Delaware) . Augustine Wildlife Area consists of four large land tracts 
totaling almost 2,700 ac of wilderness near Port Penn and the Delaware River. The site 
contains the Port Penn Trail, a 1-mi path that winds its way between a tidal marsh and the 
Delaware River. This trail is located across the street from the Port Penn Interpretive Center, 
and it is open from October 1 to February 1. Near the trail head are an authentic floating cabin 
and a historic muskrat-skinning shack. The site offers wildlife watching along with a number of 
hunting opportunities. These hunting opportunities include waterfowl hunting, deer hunting 
(including categories for firearms, archery, and disabled hunters), small game hunting, and 
falconry (EcoDelaware 2014-TN3266; DNREC 2012-TN3267). 

Abbotts Meadow Wildlife Management Area (New Jersey) . Abbotts Meadow is a 1,468-ac 
WMA in Salem County, New Jersey. It is a hotspot for viewing birds of grasslands and early 
successional habitats. The farm fields, marsh edge and meadows, and hedgerows that 
separate them provide a perfect habitat for a variety of species. Baltimore and orchard orioles 
are often seen darting through the hedgerows, along with northern cardinals and field sparrows. 
In the winter waterfowl and wading birds can be seen in the marsh, and raptors such as 
northern harriers can sometimes be seen. Ospreys are common during late spring and 
summer, while bald eagles are more often seen during the colder months. Groundhogs are 
commonly seen along the roads and fields of the WMA. Muskrat dens are found throughout the 
marsh. The site also provides hiking, fishing and hunting opportunities (NJDEP 2012-TN3269). 

Mad Horse Creek Wildlife Management Area (New Jersey) . The Mad Horse Creek WMA in 
Lower Alloways Creek Township, Salem County, is 9,498 ac. It offers opportunities for boating, 
saltwater fishing, hunting, and bird watching (waterfowl and other birds). The area has foraging 
and nesting habitat for bald eagles, ospreys, and great blue herons. There is parking as well as 
a boat ramp at the end of Stowneck Road. The area contains both tidal marsh and upland 
habitat (PSEG 2012-TN1489; OTWNJ 2012-TN3270). 

Important Terrestrial and Wetland Species and Habitats—Existing Transmission Lines 

Important Species . Important species having the potential to occur in the existing transmission 
line corridors are similar to those species that could potentially occur on the PSEG Site and in 
the 6-mi vicinity as described above. Federally and State-listed species in transmission line 
ROWs are the same species as listed above. 

Important Habitats . Important habitats having the potential to occur in the existing transmission 
line corridors and access road are similar to those habitats that occur on the PSEG Site and in 
the 6-mi vicinity as described above. The existing transmission ROWs servicing HOGS and 
SGS are not known to extend through Federally designated critical habitat. However, wetland 


NUREG-2168 


2-82 


November 2015 









Affected Environment 


habitats exist along their route. In addition to important wetland habitat, existing transmission 
ROWs are routed through Mad Horse Creek WMA and Abbotts Meadow WMA. 

2.4.1.4 Terrestrial and Wetland Monitoring 

PSEG conducts vegetation cover and geomorphology monitoring as part of its EEP. This 
program has been ongoing since 1995 and includes four wetland restoration sites and two 
reference sites. The objective of these programs is to restore Phragmites dominated 
communities with native marsh species. The biological monitoring program is conducted 
subject to an NJDEP approved work plan and each site is monitored yearly to evaluate the 
success of the restoration (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

2.4.2 Aquatic Ecology 

This section describes the aquatic environments and their associated biological resources in the 
vicinity of the PSEG Site that could be affected by building, operating, or maintaining a new 
nuclear power plant at the site. It describes the spatial and temporal distribution, abundance, 
life history stages, and attributes of biotic assemblages that could be affected by building and 
operating a new nuclear power plant, and identifies “important” or irreplaceable aquatic natural 
resources that could be affected. The surface-water hydrology and water quality that support 
these aquatic resources in vicinity of the PSEG Site are described in Section 2.3. 

The principal aquatic systems that could be affected include the onsite artificial lakes and small 
marsh creeks, the extensive area of marsh creeks north of the PSEG Site where the proposed 
causeway would be constructed, and the Delaware River Estuary. 

2.4.2 .7 Aquatic Resources of the Site and Vicinity 

Artificial Lakes and Onsite Small Marsh Creeks 

Aquatic systems in the PSEG Site vicinity include small artificial lakes, as described in 
Table 2-1, that are within dredged material containment berms (desilt basins) and wetland 
ecosystems—including their extensive network of interconnected marsh creeks. The desilt 
basins are located in the northwestern area of the existing PSEG Site and have a variable 
combined surface area that depends on use and operation of the basins for dredge disposal 
operations (identified as open water/pond in Figure 2-21). The desilt basins function as perched 
water bodies hydrologically isolated from the adjacent coastal wetlands (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 
Aquatic habitats associated with the desilt basins are considered poor for sustaining balanced 
indigenous biotic communities because they are shallow; have silt and sand substrates; and lack 
adequate physical structure, nutrient regimes, and hydrodynamic flow for maintaining high levels of 
in situ biological productivity (PSEG 2015-TN4280). These human-made systems are part of the 
USACE CDF facility and PSEG's active, licensed desilt basin and not hydrologically connected to 
the Delaware River or tidally influenced; therefore, they are transitory and subject to use as disposal 
areas for material dredged as part of ongoing maintenance activities. 


November 2015 


2-83 


NUREG-2168 






Affected Environment 



Figure 2-21. Surface Waters and Desilt Basins On and Near the PSEG Site Providing 
Habitat for Aquatic Resources (Source: PSEG 2015-TN4280) 


NUREG-2168 


2-84 


November 2015 












Affected Environment 


The biological communities of these desilt basins and onsite small marsh creeks consist 
primarily of benthic invertebrates and fish communities, and are listed by species in Tables 2-9 
and 2-10, respectively. Fish were collected from small onsite creeks using weirs and seines set 
at high tide and retrieved at low tide. Recent sampling in 2009 showed that diversity and 
standing stock biomass of the fish community is relatively low, with six to seven species typically 
dominating during most seasons of the year (PSEG 2013-TN2586). Basically, four levels of the 
food chain are represented in these basins, including (1) small fish that are considered top- 
water insectivores (Sheepshead Minnow, Cyprinodon variegatus; Banded Killifish, Fundulus 
diaphanus; and Mummichog, F. heteroclitus ); (2) detritivores/bottom feeders represented by 
Common Carp ( Cyprinus carpio)\ (3) omnivores represented by Pumpkinseed ( Lepomis 
gibbosus) and Bluegill ( L. macrochirus)\ planktivores represented by Inland Silverside ( Menidia 
beryllina)', and (4) piscivores represented by Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides). 

Relative abundance of fish in these systems is higher in the spring and summer, reflecting 
recruitment of young-of-the-year into the populations during these periods. 

Macroinvertebrates were sampled using a ponar dredge in onsite desilt basins, onsite small 
marsh creeks, offsite large marsh creeks, and the Delaware River Estuary near the PSEG 
shoreline (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Assessment of the macroinvertebrate community in 2009 also 
displayed low diversity of the benthic macroinvertebrates in these desilt basins, with primarily 
only two phyla, the annelids and the arthropods, being represented as shown in Table 2-9 
(PSEG 2013-TN2586). The oligochaete worms in the family Tubificidae ( Limnodrilus spp.) and 
one insect genus, the non-biting midge (i.e., Chironomus), are the dominant organisms in terms 
of biomass and relative abundance (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The most abundant invertebrate 
species in the benthic community of the smaller marsh creeks are oligochaetes ( Limnodrilus 
and other tubificids) and amphipods ( Gammarus daiberiand Leptocheirus sp.) (PSEG 2013- 
TN2586). The low diversity, biomass, and abundance of the macroinvertebrate community in 
these desilt basins are probably major regulators of the structure and function of the fish 
communities because these food sources provide relatively poor bioenergetic and nutritive 
value. 

Marsh Creek Drainages 

The onsite interconnected system of marsh creeks is represented by four major drainages 
including Mill Creek, Alloway Creek, Fishing Creek, and Hope Creek along with a large number 
of small to medium size interconnected streams throughout the area north and east of the 
existing PSEG Site (Figure 2-21). All but the most upstream intermittent segments of these 
streams are tidally influenced because of their hydrologic connection to the Delaware River 
Estuary (PDE 2012-TN2191). Physicochemical conditions such as salinity and temperature can 
fluctuate rather widely in these streams over periods of hours or weeks, depending upon 
climatic conditions, freshwater discharge at the headwaters, and tidal height and influence. 
Typically, in the upper reaches of these streams, salinity conditions are considered oligohaline 
(salinity range from 0.5 to 5 ppt) while the lower reaches, which are more tidally influenced, are 
classified as mesohaline (salinity range of 5 to 18 ppt) (PSEG 2013-TN2586). The spatial 
gradients along the streams of physicochemical factors (salinity, temperature, dissolved oxygen, 
nutrients) influence the composition, productivity, relative abundance, and spatial distribution of 
the resident biological communities. 


November 2015 


2-85 


NUREG-2168 








Affected Environment 


Table 2-9. Macroinvertebrates Sampled in Desilt Basins, Onsite Marsh Creeks, Offsite 
Large Marsh Creeks, and Nearshore Delaware River Estuary in the Vicinity of 
the PSEG Site in 2009 (PSEG 2013-TN2586) 


Scientific 

Classification 

Abundance in 
Desilt Basins and 
Small Creeks 
Onsite 

Abundance in 
Large Marsh 
Creeks 

Abundance in the 
Nearshore 
Delaware River 
Estuary 

Phylum Nematoda 

1 

— 

— 

Phylum Nemertea 

— 

1 

— 

Phylum Annelida 

Oligochaetes 

635 

3 

4 

Polychaetes 

23 

33 

52 

Phylum Mollusca 

— 

4 

2 

Phylum Arthropoda 

Amphipods 

291 

965 

37 

Isopods 

3 

14 

27 

Decapods 

— 

2 

— 

Mysids 

— 

6 

5 

Insects 

200 

— 

— 

Total number oftaxa 

24 

21 

19 


Fish communities were sampled in small and large reference creek habitats and in habitats that 
were restored by PSEG. Monthly sampling between May and November was achieved using 
otter trawls in large marsh creeks and weir sampling in small marsh creeks (PSEG 2004- 
TN2565). The marsh creek segments in the lower bay included Dennis Township, Commercial 
Township, and Moores Beach, and upper bay sites included Browns Run, Mill Creek, Mad 
Horse Creek, and Alloway Creek (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

The marsh creeks nearest the PSEG Site are Mill Creek, Alloway Creek, and Mad Horse Creek, 
and they show different fish assemblages between 2003 and 2010 from those sampled in the 
small PSEG desilt basins and onsite drainage creeks (Table 2-10). Mad Horse Creek occurs to 
the south of the PSEG Site and is not depicted on Figure 2-21. 

The smaller segments of the nearest marsh creek systems were dominated in all seasons by 
the Mummichog, with both Atlantic Silverside (Menidia menidia) and Bay Anchovy (Anchoa 
mitchilli) also being present on a consistent basis (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; 
PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; 

PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571). The Mummichog is typically found in tidal creek 
systems from New England to the South Atlantic coast and is characterized by having a 
relatively high physiological tolerance to varying physicochemical factors and also displaying 
high site fidelity and residing all or most of their lives in tidal creek systems (Sweeney et 
al. 1998-TN2205). As is typical of most small marsh creek systems, fish community diversity is 
low, varying from one to five species depending on the season, and fish biomass is almost 
always dominated by one or two species. 


NUREG-2168 


2-86 


November 2015 






Affected Environment 


c 

<u 

<D 

$ 

*-> 

05 

CQ 

■o 

c 

ro 

05 

o 

o 

CM 


05 

*-> 

C /3 

O 

LU 

C /3 

Q_ 

0) 

.C 


0 

>4 

'E 

'o 

> 

05 


1/5 

jt: 

05 

05 

k_ 

O 

sl 

co 

0 

CO 


■D 

C 

CO 

CO 

c 

CO 

CO 

CQ 


CO 

05 

O 


■D 

_Q5 

a 

E 

CO 

C/D o 

c/> £ 

m O 
•- CM 


■ 

CM 

_05 

n 

co 

I- 


05 

05 


05 
05 

i_ 

CO 

-I 

c 

- 05 CJ 

E </> 

C0 4- 

"O (0 

I s 

-Q 

< 


.J2 o 

c 

05 O 

ET 

O) co 
05 o 
C/D O 
CM 


CO 

E 

C/D 


.E £ 

05 O 

c ■*= 

g “ 

■o 
c 

3 
-Q 
< 


05 (/> or 

05 ° 

C 

05 O 

| 7 

O) co 
_ 05 O 
^ C/D O 
S CM 


05 

CO 05 

CO CO 

00 

CM 

T- U5 T- CO 

CO 

05 t- 


CO 

T— 

CM 

CM 

CO 

CM -r- 

t- N- 

LO 

•O' 

CM 

CO 

CM 

CM 

c\T 


05 


CO 

o" 

CO 

CM 


05 CO 3- 

g E o> 

w W o 

© 

c 2* 

CO (/5 
CO 

3 


C 

O ■o 

c 


05 

a 

c 

CO 

■O 

c 

3 

.Q 

< 


J£ 

05 

« a> 

co O 
CQ ^ 
*; ui 

C/5 (0 
05 ^ 

a 


0 

E 

CO 

z 

c 

o 

E 

E 

o 

o 


0 

E 

CO 

z 

o 


c 

0 

o 

C/D 


N- 

T- CO 

CD 

h- 

h- 

CM t- 

co 

CO 

O CO 

1^- CO 

■<— "O' 

uo 


T— 

co 

M" 

h- 

co 

o 

O T- 

05 

io co 


CM 


T— 

CO 

cn 

rk 

CM 

T— 

05 

co' 

05 

CO 


CO 


05 

CO 


CO 


05 

_C 

i— 

0 

X 

o 

CO 

J3 

0 

3 


TO 

0 

.C 

C/D 

>, 
t_ 

O 

o 


TO 

0 


CD X 


_0 

< 

co 

05 


0 

E 

< 


.co 


CO 

0 


CO 

o 


-CO 

0 

CJ 

0 

■0 

0 


0 


O 

"CD 


CO 

.co 

•0 


0 

CO co 

.0 ■ 


0 
co 
0. co 

0 


.0 


CM 


C/D ^ — 


0 (J 

o w 


0 


CO 


0 

0 


0 


CO 

.o 


CO 


■M - 

M" 


TO 

0 

0 

.c 


3 

CD 


O 

u_ 

CD 


co 

co 

O 

-5 

0 


> 

o 

JZ 

a 

c 

< 

TO 

0 

Q_ 

i_ 

CO 


> 

> 

o 

j:I 
o 
c 
< 

>> 

0 

CD 


0 

LU 

c 

0 

o 

0 


o 

0 

X 

i_ 

0 

> 


c 

0 

TO 

0 

_C 

c 

0 


o 


c 

0 


< CO < 


0. co co 


0 


CO 

0 ^ 

§. s 

^ s 

0 0 
0 0 

0 0 


0 

to 

s 

cp 


0 C0 

0 s 

0 r= 


& 

p- 

0 

.0 


I 


0 

3 "0 

05 k 
~ 0 


^ OQ QQ CJ 


00 CM 
M" O’ 


y 0 


T3 

O 

O 


0 

: 

o 

3 

C/D 

0 


05 

C 

L_ 

0 

_c 

TO 

0 

c 

0 

■g 

’c 

X 


o 

c 

c 


0 


.c 

CO 

0 

0 


CO 

0 


2 
0 
0 
.0 CO 


o 

52 

0 

^ m 
05 

’o 
0 
Q. 
C 0 c/5 


0 

0 

0 


.co 


CO 

0 

. 8 * 


0 £ 

CJD § 

£ * 


co 

co 

5 

0 


0 

■§ 


£: 

0 

to 0 

0 Cl 

0 -3 
O O 


0 

0D 

0 


.0 

0 
CO 
0 

X §; 
cj o 


.0 

& 

0 

0 

0 

0 


O' "O' 
CO CO 


0 

•O 

c 

3 


2 

Q. 

u. 

"O 

c_ 

CD 

o 

o 

LL 

_c 

0 

T3 

CD 

0 


r— 


CD 

o 


TO 

_L_ 

= 

0 

_c 

c 

CD 

_0 

0 

3 

o 


m 

o 

T3 


c 

TO 

CL 

0 

0 

_c 

E 

E 

o 

i_ 

CD 

N 

N 

*0 

in 

in 

0 

c 

"0 

E 

0 

TO 

C 

0 

CD 

O 

b 

1- 

CD 

CD 


-CD ~rs 

© — o = .<2 


in 


o 

E 

E 

3 


X O 


TO 

0 

Q_ 

L. 

CD 


3 

cr 

m 

O 


>> 

.Q 

O 

O 

TO 

0 

j*: 

CD 


.0 

"0 

0 

co 

0 

co 

to 

.05 

1 

CO 

0 

0 

0 

"0 

0 

& 

0 

0 

0 

CO 

0 

4^. 

.0 

0- 

.0 

"0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

t 


’— 

0 

0 

CT) 

co 

co 

CO 

CO 

8 

0 

0 

0 

1 

■0 

~0 

CD 

Lu 

Uj 




.CO 

0 -1 

CO 

03 

£ 


.0 


co 


0 

CO 

0 

■0 

0 


0 

CO 

.0 

-0 

0 




November 2015 


2-87 


NUREG-2168 





Affected Environment 


0 

o> 



.E 2! 


0 o 

C ■*= 
£ 2 
0 TO 

I s 

-O 

< 


■O 



0 o 


05 CO 
<15 O 
CO o 

CN 


cd n- in 

C\J CD h- 
in 

CN 


05 t- 

T— T— 

CO 

CD 

O CN t- 00 

LO 

O 

CN 

h- 

05 

O’ 

05 

co o- 

05 

T— 

CD 

CN 

CO 

ID 

O 



CO 


T—’ 

CN 

O 

CN 







CN 







TO 

E , 
w 0 
.E S? 


0 o 

o 
c 

TO 


-C 

</> 


■O 

c 

3 

D 

< 


TO 


.o 



C ■»- 
0 O 


1 ' 

05 CO 

0) O 

CO o 

CN 


CO CN CO 
CN CN 


CN 


O 

CO 

CN 

CD 

T“ 

CO 

CN 


LO 


CO 


CD CO 


TJ 

a> 

□ 

c 


c 

o 

O 


■ 

CN 

O 

SI 

TO 


05 

+■> 

If) 

c 

O 


0 

o 

c 

TO 

■o 

c 

3 

O 

< 


TO 

E 

co 

■O 

c 

TO 

C/5 

C 


CD 

O 

o 

CN 

C/5 

0 

0 


0 
TO O 

DQ £ 

C/5 TO 
0 ^ 
a 2 


O CD LO 

CN CD N" 

C0 t— 


CO CN UO 

00 t- 


0 

E 

TO 

z 

C 

o 

E 

E 

o 

o 


£ 

O 

c 

c 


0 
> 

CO 
c 

0 ® 
0 
TO 


0 


0 


0 

TO 

o 

■0 

c 

c 

TO 

.c 


o 

CL 


0 

C 

3 

CO 

c 

0 

0 


0 

0 

0 

0 

c 

Q. 


0 

TO 


0 

■0 

0 

l_ 

0 

> 


0 

■0 

0 

0 

> 


~ 0 
05 


— "m CO 


— CO 


c 

2: 


05 
0 

3 ^ 


01 

C 

TO 


TO 
O 

L_ 

o 

- O 2 


o 


c 

TO 


TO = O = 


0 

O 


c 

TO 


0 

0 

TO 

CD 


3 

O 

E 

0 


o 


0 
0 
TO 
0 CD 

0 

0 0 


0 

0 

O 

i_ 

0 

CL 

0 

0 


C 

0 


05 ~ .Q-0 — 


coujoco(5q.cdq;£<z<j 


JS £ 


CO 


c 

3 


0 

c 


0 - •= 


^ ^ CO CO 


0 


0 jS 
2 o 

O Q. 


0 

0 

TO 

O 


0 

0 


0 

0 

I 5 

U- 05 
0 

II 


E 

3 

L_ 

Q 

o 

TO 


0 

0 

II 


0 _ — _ 


0 

0 

3 


0 

‘CL 

Q_ 

TO 
\_ 

o 

o 

TO 


O(0OC0>-mcQCQ 


0 TD 

0 
0 


c 

0 

0 

'c 

Z) 


0 

c 

TO 

CL 

£ 

o 

0 

c 


0 

E 

TO 

z 

o 


c 

05 

a 

co 


co 

TO 

co 

o 

£ 

g 

co 

>c 

O 

co 


Co 

.TO 

$5 

£ 

CO 

TO 

2 

TO 

TO 


£ §> 


I 


co 

TO 

•fc-i 

TO 

cj 

TO 

TO 

TO- 

co 

1 

2 

Cj 


co 

£ 

TO 

2 

TO 

TO 

* 

co 

TO 

£ 

TO 

co 

.O 

TO 
—I 


to to 

2 TO 


TO 


co 

O 


co 

.£ 

-TO 
TO 

TO - ^ 

S -O TO 

2 S 

C? CD £ 
.CO .Co .co 

£ £ £ 
TO TO O 
Q- a TO. 
TO TO TO 
—J —j 


2 .TO 

TO $ ^ 
^ ^ TO 

l. TO* n5 
TO TO 2 
CTO -TO £ 

.TO .TO .TO 
TO $ 1TO 


TO 

TO 

TO 

—I 


TO TO 
TO TO 


co 
TO 

2 

■§ 
TO 
TO 
co 
.TO 

TO 
O 

*= §■ 

£ £ 


5 

TO 

co 

co 

TO 

.? 

.TO 


CO 

1TO 


TO 

co 

co 

£ 

TO 


£ 

.TO 


TO 

TO 

TO 

.TO 


.CO 


co 

TO 

TO 

TO 

-£ 

"o CO 

$ -3 
o s 

TO O 


05 

£ 

TO 

* 

TO 

CL 

TO 

£ 

05 

co 

TO 

TO 

TO 

.C; 

TO 

TO 

TO 

TO 

0 

TO 

O 


TO 

TO 

05 

05 

05 

TO 

TO 

.Co 

.TO 

TO 

TO 

TO 

P 


TO 

£ 

O 

w 

£ 

2^ 

2 

§ 

TO 

co 

o 

o 

o 

TO 

o 

O 

cl 


^ ^ ^ ^ ^ O' CL 


co 

TO 

TO 2 

§ TO 
a TO 
co co 

^ §> 

2 
TO: 

TO 

£ 


-TO 

.TO 

£ 


.co 

£ 

£ 

TO 

CO 

.TO 

TO 

O 


>c 

2 

2 

TO 

co 

co 

TO 

£ 

2 

TO 


co 

TO 

2 

TO 

TO 

TO 

£ 

£> 

TO 


co 

TO 

co 

0 § 

£ ^ 
CL TO 


0 

05 


VJ pi 

cd £ 

2 2 
Q- Q- 


.TO TO5 

* £ 
O 05 
.TO 
TO 


O 

Q. 


TO 
£ 

2 $s 
2 
-TO 

§• 
TO 


00 (/) 


NUREG-2168 


2-88 


November 2015 






Affected Environment 


■d 

to 

3 

_C 

C 

o 

o 


CN 

_TO 

n 

ro 


a) 

05 

h ■* 

—I <d 

.E £ 

a, O 

c - 

E w 

TO v_ 

■o 

C 
3 
.Q 
< 


j2 o 

c 


o 

CN 


jS co 


to 

E , 

□D co 
0) o 


o 

CN 


CO 

E ^ 2* 

w TO</)- 

E £ c ? 

TO <-> ® O 

c ^ !L™ 

i I/) OlM 
TO i- 0) O 
■O TO (n 

I s 

J3 

< 


O 

CN 


TO TO ,2. 

% E aT 

£ w g 

° i s 

.E TO (fl 
a> w 
o.Eg 
e m S 

TO CO (J 

3 s; t/> 

■5 (fl ra 

< TO ^ 

Q 


0) 

E 

CO 

z 

c 

o 

E 

E 

o 

o 


0 

E 

CO 

Z 


c 

to 

o 

CO 


lo 't 
t- oo 
05 


C/> 

*0) 

3 

05 x: 


Q. 

Z5 

O 


c 

o 

I- 

Q5 

Cl) 

_C 

o 

j*: 

o 

CO 


C/5 

'3 

CL 


CD 

_C 

■c 

o 


CD 

O 

_C 

o 

O) 

o 


CO 

CQ 

z 

I 

C/5 




a 

C 0 


co 

O 

co 

co 

s 

& 

13 

•5 

TO 

CO 

jo 

33 

TO 

cl 

TO? 

TO 

CO 

C/5 

TO 

co 

CO 

TO 

TO 

to 


co 

O 

—. 
r*» 

"co 

TO 

TO 

p- 

g. 

to 

TO 3 

TO 

TO 

0 ) 


X 

’TO 

lo 

c /) 

LO 

h— 


CD 

CO 

I 

•O 

TO 

O 

Q. 

CO 


.to 

a? 

.CO 

I 


05 

O 

O 

CN 

0 

LU 

C/D 

CL 

CD 

CO 

CO 

CN 

z 


oo 

O 

o 

CN 

0 

LLI 

C/D 

CL 

co" 

CO 

in 

CN 


r- 

o 

o 

CN 

0 

LLI 

CO 

CL 

10 

CO 

LO 

CN 


CO 

O 

O 

CN 

0 

LU 

CO 

CL 

CO 

CO 

in 

CN 


in 

o 

o 

CN 

0 

LU 

CO 

CL 

in 

co 

in 

CN 


t i 

o o 
o 

CN O 

0 " 
UJ 0 
CO LiJ 

% i> 

to in 

3 CM 

o z 

CO I- 


C0 X5 


November 2015 


2-89 


NUREG-2168 







Affected Environment 


The fish collection data of the larger marsh creek segments are shown in Table 2-10 and are 
composed of a higher total number and diversity of species between 2003 and 2010 than the 
small marsh creek segments. Several of these species normally are associated with tidal 
estuaries and higher salinity regimes. The most consistently abundant species present in these 
larger creek segments are the Bay Anchovy, Atlantic Menhaden ( Brevoortia tyrannus ), and 
White Perch ( Morone americana ). Other species that are generally common and occasionally 
abundant include the Weakfish ( Cynoscion regalis), Striped Bass ( Morone saxatilis), Hogchoker 
(Trinectes maculatus), Atlantic Silverside, Atlantic Croaker ( Micropogonias undulatus ), and Spot 
(Leiostomus xanthurus). Several of these estuarine-associated species such as juvenile 
Atlantic Menhaden, Weakfish, and Atlantic Croaker use the larger marsh creek segments as 
feeding and nursery areas before migrating back to higher salinity and more open waters as 
more developed juveniles or adults (MDNR 2013-TN2156). 

However, as with the macroinvertebrate communities in the desilt basins and small marsh 
creeks, diversity in these larger marsh creeks is also low (see Table 2-9). Amphipods are the 
most dominant group of invertebrates, being represented by Corophium sp. and Gammarus 
daiberi{PSEG 2013-TN2586). 

Delaware River Estuary 

The Delaware River and Delaware Bay are a part of the larger Delaware Estuary and River 
Basin that extends from headwaters in New York State to the coastal plains near Cape 
Henlopen in Delaware (PDE 2012-TN2191). The Delaware Bay extends from the confluence of 
the Delaware River with the Atlantic Ocean from Delaware River Kilometer (RKM) 0 to RKM 87 
[RM 0 to RM 54], The Delaware River Estuary includes the Delaware Bay and extends up the 
tidal Delaware River, which is characterized by brackish water between Delaware RKM 87 and 
RKM 129 (RM 54 to RM 80) and becomes freshwater at Delaware RKM 129 (RM 80) (BBL and 
Integral 2007-TN2126). The PSEG Site near the mouth of Alloway Creek is at Delaware RKM 
84 (RM 52) (DRBC 2011-TN2412) and is considered to be in the lower estuary watershed unit 
of the Delaware Estuary and River Basin (PDE 2012-TN2191). Characterization of the region 
dates back to pre-Revolutionary War times when shipping and trading at developing ports from 
the mouth of the Delaware River Estuary to inland Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey 
increased use of the watershed (Berger et al. 1994-TN2127). Increasing urbanization and 
industrialization of the region from 1840 to present day have significantly contributed to the 
degradation of the watershed with habitat alteration, water diversion, and increased pollution of 
the Delaware Estuary and River Basin ecosystems as no environmental policies were 
established until the 1960s and later (Berger et al. 1994-TN2127). According to the most recent 
status report on the Delaware Estuary and River Basin, the region continues to see some 
decline in environmental health indicators such as removal of estuary sediments and increases 
in nitrogen and contaminant levels. However, environmental conditions such as technology 
implementation to increase fish passage and restoration of targeted aquatic habitats have 
improved the aquatic ecology for the watershed (PDE 2012-TN2191). The DRBC stated in the 
State of the Delaware River Basin report for 2013 that increases in temperature and salinity are 
expected with future sea-level rise and climate change over a period of time in the future 
(DRBC 2013-TN2609). The DRBC conclusion is supported by the U.S. Global Change 
Research Program regarding the very high likelihood that sea levels will rise and create different 
environmental conditions within this century (GCRP 2014-TN3472). Because the Delaware 


NUREG-2168 


2-90 


November 2015 






Affected Environment 


River Estuary near the PSEG Site is already a zone of tidally influenced fluctuation with variable 
salinity and temperature, these potential changes are likely to result in movement of populations 
of marine and euryhaline species farther up the Delaware River Estuary. 

The biological communities of the Delaware River Estuary in the area of the PSEG Site are 
typical of those that exist all along the main reaches of the Delaware Bay system. To mitigate 
egg and larval fish loss through the cooling system for SGS. PSEG proposed and established 
an estuary enhancement program (EEP) to restore salt marshes and provide monitoring and 
other structural enhancements to mitigate losses of aquatic species through impingement and 
entrainment at SGS (Balletto and Teal 2011-TN2612). The EEP established an ongoing 
biological monitoring program, in addition to habitat restoration, to track the success of the 
mitigation actions. Because of the biological monitoring surveys that have been conducted in 
this area of the Delaware Bay since the mid-1980s in support of the environmental requirements 
for the construction and operation of the SGS and the HCGS. an extensive long-term data set 
exists on the fishery and benthic macroinvertebrate communities of this area. 

Submerged aquatic vegetation has not historically been observed in the Delaware River Estuary 
near the PSEG Site primarily because of the high levels of turbidity (Miller et al. 2012-TN2686), 
and submerged aquatic vegetation was not observed in the sampling areas near the PSEG Site 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Biological monitoring and characterization of the fish communities of the Delaware River 
Estuary and near the PSEG Site are based on trawling and seining surveys which have been 
conducted annually for several years and also on power plant impingement and entrainment 
data sets for SGS (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 
2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011- 
TN2571). Table 2-11 lists the diversity of species from the combined trawling and seining 
sampling efforts between 2003 and 2010 for the entire Delaware River Estuary region from 
RKM 0 to RKM 117 (RM 0 to RM 72.7) and for sampling zone 7 (nearest the PSEG Site) from 
RKM 80 to RKM 100 (RM 49.7 to RM 62.1). Species collected from seining efforts are listed 
only as being present. Bottom trawls using a semi-balloon otter trawl were used to collect 
samples once per month from April through November (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005- 
TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009- 
TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571). and between 2003 and 2004, pelagic 
trawl studies were also conducted (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566). Seining was 
performed twice a month between July and October and once per month in June and November 
using a 100 ft long by 6 ft deep bagged haul seine (PSEG 2004-TN2565: PSEG 2005-TN2566; 
PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 
2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571). 

Trawling and seining species abundance and diversity reflect the variable salinity levels with the 
lower bay zones near the mouth of the Delaware River Estuary showing the highest salinity 
levels and the salinity gradually decreasing through the mid-bay zone to the upper-bay zones 
near the PSEG Site (see Figure 2-22). Predominantly marine species and anadromous species 
dominated the mouth of the bay with a transition to more euryhaline species in the mid- and 
upper-bay zones. Trawling and seining surveys in 2003 and 2004 examined zones further 
upriver from the upper bay zones and collected primarily freshwater and anadromous species 
(PSEG 2004-TN2565: PSEG 2005-TN2566). 


November 2015 


2-91 


NUREG-2168 





Affected Environment 


Table 2-11. Fish Species and Blue Crab Abundance from Bottom and Pelagic (a) Trawl and 
Seining Sampling in the Delaware River Estuary and Near the PSEG Site 
Between 2003 and 2010 


Scientific Name 

Common Name 

Abundance in All 
Zones Between 
RKM 0 and 117, 
2003-2010 

Abundance in 
Zone 7 Between 
RKM 80 and 100, 
2003-2010 

Alosa pseudoharengus 

Alewife 

328 

74 (b > 

Anguilla rostrata 

American Eel 

1,263 

367 (b) 

Alosa sapidissima 

American Shad 

113 

13 (b) 

Micropogonias undulatus 

Atlantic Croaker 

134,074 

12,259 (b) 

Trichiurus lepturus 

Atlantic Cutlassfish 

5 

0 

Clupea harengus 

Atlantic Herring 

131 

1 

Brevoortia tyrannus 

Atlantic Menhaden 

375 

43 (b) 

Selene setapinnis 

Atlantic Moonfish 

56 

0 

Strongylura marina 

Atlantic Needlefish 

3 

o (b) 

Menidia menidia 

Atlantic Silverside 

410 

4(b) 

Chaetodipterus faber 

Atlantic Spadefish 

3 

0 

Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus 

Atlantic Sturgeon 

3 

0 

Fundulus diaphanus 

Banded Killifish 

0 

o (b) 

Anchoa mitchilli 

Bay Anchovy 

392,617 

9,922 (b) 

Pogonias cromis 

Black Drum 

91 

15 

Centropristis striata 

Black Sea Bass 

131 

1 

Symphurus plagiusa 

Blackcheek Tonguefish 

78 

3 

Callinectes sapidus 

Blue Crab 

11,998 

909 

Caranx crysos 

Blue Runner 

10 

0 

Alosa aestivalis 

Blueback Herring 

236 

33 (b) 

Pomatomus saltatrix 

Bluefish 

83 

4(b) 

Dasyatis say 

Bluntnose Stingray 

3 

0 

Ameiurus nebulosus 

Brown Bullhead 

13 

12< b > 

Myliobatis freminvillei 

Bullnose Ray 

32 

0 

Peprilus triacanthus 

Butterfish 

1,515 

3 

Cyprinus carpio 

Common Carp 

1 

0 (b) 

Ictalurus punctatus 

Channel Catfish 

1,984 

194(b) 

Raja eglanteria 

Clearnose Skate 

104 

0 

Conger oceanicus 

Conger Eel 

75 

0 

Rhinoptera bonasus 

Cownose Ray 

4 

0 

Hybognathus regius 

Eastern Silvery Minnow 

10 

3 (b) 

Dorosoma cepedianum 

Gizzard Shad 

15 

3 (b) 

Peprilus alepidotus 

Harvestfish 

3 

0 

Alosa mediocris 

Hickory Shad 

4,014 

1,351 

Trinectes maculatus 

Hogchoker 

30,909 

9,221< b > 

Synodus foetens 

Inshore Lizardfish 

2 

0 

Hippocampus erectus 

Lined Seahorse 

39 

0 


NUREG-2168 


2-92 


November 2015 





Affected Environment 


Table 2-11. (continued) 


Scientific Name 

Common Name 

Abundance in All 
Zones Between 
RKM 0 and 117, 
2003-2010 

Abundance in 
Zone 7 Between 
RKM 80 and 100, 
2003-2010 

Raja erinacea 

Little Skate 

27 

0 

Selene vomer 

Lookdown 

5 

0 

Fundulus heteroclitus 

Mummichog 

0 

o (b) 

Gobiosoma bosc 

Naked Goby 

500 

141 

Menticirrhus saxatllis 

Northern Kingfish 

677 

221< b ) 

Syngnathus fuscus 

Northern Pipefish 

275 

12 

Sphoeroides maculatus 

Northern Puffer 

13 

0 

Prlonotus carolinus 

Northern Searobin 

572 

5 

Astroscopus guttatus 

Northern Stargazer 

52 

1 

Opsanus tau 

Oyster Toadfish 

664 

8 

Orthopristis chrysoptera 

Pigfish 

4 

0 

Lagodon rhomboldes 

Pinfish 

4 

0 

Lepomis gibbosus 

Pumpkinseed 

3 

0 

Urophycis chuss 

Red Hake 

330 

0 

Dasyatis centroura 

Roughtail Stingray 

5 

0 

Stenotomus chrysops 

Soup 

2,353 

0 

Petromyzon marinus 

Sea Lamprey 

2 

0 

Acipenser brevirostrum 

Shortnose Sturgeon 

4 

0 

Merluccius bilinearis 

Silver Hake 

18 

0 

Bairdiella chrysoura 

Silver Perch 

420 

29 (b > 

Gobiesox strumosus 

Skilletfish 

6 

0 

Etropus microstomus 

Smallmouth Flounder 

186 

19 

Mustelus canis 

Smooth Dogfish 

350 

0 

Scomberomorus maculatus 

Spanish Mackerel 

11 

0 

Gymnura altavela 

Spiny Butterfly Ray 

2 

0 

Squalus acanthias 

Spiny Dogfish 

24 

0 

Lelostomus xanthurus 

Spot 

4,115 

176 (b) 

Urophycis regia 

Spotted Hake 

8,721 

196 

Anchoa hep set us 

Striped Anchovy 

599 

0< b > 

Moron e saxatilis 

Striped Bass 

1,221 

426< b > 

Chilomycterus schoepfii 

Striped Burrfish 

22 

0 

Ophidion marginatum 

Striped Cusk-Eel 

733 

17 

Fundulus majalis 

Striped Killifish 

0 

o (b) 

Prionotus evolans 

Striped Searobin 

190 

0 

Paralichthys dentatus 

Summer Flounder 

349 

8 < b) 

Tautoga onitis 

Tautog 

2 

0 

Etheostoma olmstedi 

Tessellated Darter 

2 

0 

Sciaenidae 

Unidentified drum 

5 

0 

Cynoscion regalis 

Weakfish 

27,028 

7,312( b ) 


November 2015 


2-93 


NUREG-2168 






Affected Environment 


Table 2-11. (continued) 


Scientific Name 

Common Name 

Abundance in All 
Zones Between 
RKM 0 and 117, 
2003-2010 

Abundance in 
Zone 7 Between 
RKM 80 and 100, 
2003-2010 

Ameiurus catus 

White Catfish 

33 

16 

Morone americana 

White Perch 

9,953 

2,354 (b) 

Scophthalmus aquosus 

Windowpane Flounder 

635 

2 

Pseudopleuronectes americanus 

Winter Flounder 

65 

0 

Raja ocellata 

Winter Skate 

28 

0 


Note: To convert RKM to RM, multiply RKM by 0.62. 

(a) Pelagic trawling only in 2003 and 2004. 

(b) Species present in seine sampling. 


Sources: PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008- 
TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571. 


Based on the most recent 8 years of trawling and seining surveys, the species richness of the 
fish community in the Delaware River Estuary upper bay sampling zone 7 and seining sites 
between RKM 80 and RKM 100 (RM 49.7 and RM 62.1) near the PSEG Site was relatively high, 
with over 30 different species over the 8-year span representing a variety of freshwater, marine, 
and anadromous species (see Table 2-11). 

Over the 8-year data collection period, the dominant species near the PSEG Site were 
Hogchoker, Bay Anchovy, Atlantic Croaker, Weakfish, White Perch, and Hickory Shad (Alosa 
mediocris), while other commonly abundant species included Striped Bass and American Eel 
{Anguilla rostrata). 

As mentioned previously, additional sampling studies include the impingement and entrainment 
studies at SGS between 1986 and 1987 (VJSA 1988-TN2564; ECS 1989-TN2572) and 2003 to 
2010 (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; 
PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571; PSEG 
2015-TN4280). An additional impingement study was performed between 1986 and 1987 for 
HCGS (VJSA 1988-TN2564; ECS 1989-TN2572). Results of 8 years of SGS impingement 
studies between 2003 and 2010 confirm the diversity and composition of the fish communities in 
the Delaware River Estuary near the PSEG Site are similar to those demonstrated by the 
trawling and seining results (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; 
PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 
2011-TN2571). Small differences in species composition between surveys based on active 
(i.e., trawling, seining) and passive (i.e., impingement) collection methods could be due to a 
combination of factors such as sampling methodology, gear types, and location and orientation 
of intake structures (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 


NUREG-2168 


2-94 


November 2015 










Affected Environment 



Figure 2-22. Delaware Bay and River Sampling Zones: Zones 1, 2, and 3 Lower Bay; 

Zones 4, 5, and 6 Middle Bay; Zones 7 and 8 Upper Bay; Zones 9 through 
14 Delaware River (Source: Modified from PSEG 2004-TN2565) 

In the Delaware River Estuary near the PSEG Site, fish density, richness, and species 
composition vary seasonally; densities are highest in the fall and lowest in the spring. Fish 
species richness is also highest in the fall, followed by summer, spring, and winter, as is 


November 2015 


2-95 


NUREG-2168 












Affected Environment 


common in bay and river habitats along the Atlantic coast (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Summer 
samples were numerically dominated by Weakfish, which averaged over 50 percent of the total 
collection period between 2003 and 2010 (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; 

PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; 

PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571). Other relatively common species that displayed 
variations in seasonal abundance were Atlantic Croaker and Blueback Herring (Alosa aestivalis) 
(most abundant in winter), Bay Anchovy (spring), and Striped Bass (summer and fall). Based 
on the impingement collections from both SGS and HCGS, there are no evident long-term 
temporal patterns in either fish community richness or abundance, although specific species 
such as White Perch have increased in abundance in impingement sampling at SGS between 
the mid-1980s and the 2000s, while Bay Anchovy has decreased (PSEG 2004-TN2565; 

PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; 

PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571; VJSA 1988-TN2564; 

ECS 1989-TN2572; PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Ichthyoplankton diversity was characterized most recently in 2003 and 2004 (PSEG 2004- 
TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566). Nocturnal sampling was conducted twice a month between 
April and July using a 1.0-m diameter, 500-pm mesh plankton net that was towed over 10-ft 
depth intervals. Samples were sorted and identified to the lowest taxon level practical. In the 
sampling zone nearest the PSEG Site, post-yolk sac larval Striped Bass, Weakfish eggs, 
and Bay Anchovy eggs were the most abundant species and life stages collected over the 
2-year period (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566). 

The benthic macroinvertebrate community in the Delaware River Estuary near the PSEG Site 
was characterized during two periods, 1971 to 1976, and again during the spring and fall of 
2009, as shown in Table 2-9 (Connelly et al. 1977-TN2588; PSEG 2013-TN2586). The 
composition and species richness of the macroinvertebrate community in the Delaware River 
Estuary near the site is similar to those benthic communities in other areas of the Delaware Bay 
within several miles of the site. A total of 19 invertebrate taxa were identified during the 2009 
sampling period by ponar dredge, but only a few species dominated the composition of the 
benthic community in numerical abundance and standing crop biomass. These species 
included polychaetes, amphipods, and isopods (PSEG 2015-TN4280; PSEG 2013-TN2586). 

2.4.2.2 Aquatic Resources—Offsite Areas 

Four existing 500-kV transmission lines within three existing transmission corridors convey 
power from SGS and HCGS. The existing 102 mi of transmission corridors cross Salem, 
Gloucester, and Camden Counties in New Jersey, and New Castle County in Delaware (PSEG 
2015-TN4280). The Delaware River Estuary is the only major water body crossed by 
transmission lines as described in Section 2.2.2.1. 

The proposed causeway would be built in the area of numerous medium- to large-sized marsh 
creek segments directly north and east of the PSEG Site. 


NUREG-2168 


2-96 


November 2015 



Affected Environment 


2.4.2.3 Important A qua tic Species and Habitats 

Important species include those that are commercially and recreationally important species; 
Federally listed threatened, endangered, or candidate species; and those species listed by the 
States of New Jersey and Delaware as threatened, endangered, or of special concern that 
could be affected by building, operating, or maintaining a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG 
Site. Species essential to the maintenance or survival of the above species or critical to the 
structure and function of the aquatic ecosystem are also included. 

Important aquatic habitats include wildlife sanctuaries, refuges and preserves, critical habitats 
for listed species, and essential fish habitat. 

Commercially and Recreationally Important Species 

In the Delaware River Estuary near the PSEG Site vicinity, 21 species offish are considered as 
being commercially or recreationally important in New Jersey or Delaware. In addition to these 
fish species, five species of invertebrates occurring in the region are commercially harvested in 
New Jersey and Delaware: blue crab ( Callinectes sapidus), eastern oyster ( Crassostrea 
virginica), knobbed whelk ( Busycon carica), channeled whelk ( Busycotypus canaliculatus), and 
northern quahog clam ( Mercenaria mercenaria) (PSEG 2015-TN4280). A sixth invertebrate 
species, the horseshoe crab ( Limulus polyphemus), is harvested in Delaware. Since 2008 there 
has been a moratorium in place on the harvest of horseshoe crabs in New Jersey 
(ASMFC 2014-TN3511). 

American Eel 


The American Eel ( Anguilla rostrata) is a catadromous species that spawns in the Sargasso 
Sea and migrates to fresh inland waters as juveniles and young adults. Females continue 
migration upstream to freshwater habitats that are highly oxygenated and provide sufficient food 
resources. Males tend to stay in brackish, estuarine waters. Migration for reproductively active 
adults begins in the fall, and spawning occurs in midwinter (FWS 2011-TN2145). The American 
Eel prefers soft mud or sand substrates and is widespread throughout the mid-Atlantic in 
estuaries, rivers, creeks, lakes, and ponds. Commercial harvests in New Jersey and Delaware 
totaled 129,065 lb and 90,631 lb, respectively, in 2011 (NOAA 2013-TN2174). Recreational 
harvests in 2011 totaled 31,898 individuals in New Jersey and 15,313 in Delaware 
(NOAA 2013-TN2175). 

In 2011, the FWS issued a 90-day finding on a petition to consider listing the American Eel as a 
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531 et seq. -TNI010) and 
initiated a review of the status of the species to determine if listing is warranted (76 FR 60431- 
TN2079). Trawling, seining, and weir surveys between 2003 and 2010 indicate American Eel 
were commonly caught in Delaware River Estuary waters near the PSEG Site and in the offsite 
small and large marsh creeks near the PSEG Site (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; 
PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; 

PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571; PSEG 2013-TN2586). American Eel were also 
collected in impingement sampling at SGS and HCGS between 1986 and 1987 (VJSA 1988- 
TN2564; ECS 1989-TN2572) and at SGS between 2003 and 2010 (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 


November 2015 


2-97 


NUREG-2168 






Affected Environment 


2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009- 
TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571). One American Eel was also collected in 
one of the desilt basins in 2009 (PSEG 2013-TN2586). 

American Shad 


The American Shad (Alosa sapidissima) is an anadromous fish that spends most of its adult life 
in the open ocean, returning to natal freshwater streams for spawning activities. The spawning 
season begins in March and ends in May, and the young migrate downriver to estuary habitat 
following hatching where they wait for water temperatures to begin to decrease before moving 
offshore (Rohde et al. 1994-TN2208). American Shad complete adulthood development in the 
ocean where they feed on plankton, small crustaceans, and small fish. Adults return to natal 
freshwater sources to spawn between 4 and 6 years of age (DRBC 2011-TN2140). Commercial 
harvests in New Jersey and Delaware totaled 1,886 lb and 8,967 lb, respectively, in 2011 
(NOAA 2013-TN2174). 

Trawling, seining, and weir surveys between 2003 and 2010 indicate American Shad are 
commonly found in Delaware River Estuary waters near the PSEG Site and in the large 
marsh creeks near the PSEG Site (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006- 
TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010- 
TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571; PSEG 2013-TN2586). American Shad also were collected in 
impingement sampling at SGS and HCGS between 1986 and 1987 (VJSA 1988-TN2564; 

ECS 1989-TN2572) and at SGS between 2003 and 2010 (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 
2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 
2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571). 

Atlantic Croaker 


The Atlantic Croaker (Micropogonias undulatus) is a member of the drum family (Sciaenidae) 
and is caught both commercially and for sport. The Atlantic Croaker ranges along the Atlantic 
coast and Gulf of Mexico waters and estuaries characterized by muddy and sandy mud bottoms 
(MDNR 2013-TN2156). The Atlantic Croaker spawns over the continental shelf over a 
protracted spawning season starting in early July and extending to March in warmer waters 
(Miller et al. 2003-TN2613). Larvae drift into coastal estuaries and mature to feed on small 
crustaceans, polychaete worms, and mollusks (MDNR 2013-TN2156). Commercial harvests in 
New Jersey and Delaware totaled 465,117 lb and 11,346 lb, respectively, in 2011 (NOAA 2013- 
TN2174). Recreational harvests in 2011 totaled 203,324 individuals in New Jersey and 277,222 
in Delaware (NOAA 2013-TN2175). 

Trawling, seining, and weir surveys between 2003 and 2010 indicate Atlantic Croaker are one 
of the most abundant finfish species caught in Delaware River Estuary waters near the PSEG 
Site and were also observed in the offsite small and large marsh creeks near the PSEG Site 
(PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; 

PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571; PSEG 
2013-TN2586). Atlantic Croaker were routinely present in impingement sampling at SGS and 
HCGS between 1986 and 1987 (VJSA 1988-TN2564; ECS 1989-TN2572) and were more 
abundant at SGS between 2003 and 2010 than in the mid-1980s (PSEG 2004-TN2565; 


NUREG-2168 


2-98 


November 2015 




Affected Environment 


PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; 
PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571). 

Atlantic Menhaden 


The Atlantic Menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) is a marine fish harvested extensively in the 
United States for use as a bait fish and for nutrient value (NOAA 2012-TN2176). Atlantic 
Menhaden are found in coastal and estuarine waters along the Atlantic coast. Spawning occurs 
in continental shelf waters between March and May and again between September and October 
(NOAA 2012-TN2176). Larvae mature to juveniles in estuarine habitats, and then migrate in 
schools to marine waters while filter-feeding on zooplankton and phytoplankton (NOAA 2012- 
TN2176). Commercial harvests in New Jersey and Delaware totaled 74,324,485 lb and 
64,566 lb, respectively, in 2011 (NOAA 2013-TN2174). 

Trawling, seining, and weir surveys between 2003 and 2010 observed consistent abundance of 
Atlantic Menhaden in Delaware River Estuary waters near the PSEG Site and in the onsite small 
creeks and offsite small and large marsh creeks near the PSEG Site (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 
2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009- 
TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571; PSEG 2013-TN2586). Atlantic Menhaden 
were abundant in impingement sampling at SGS and HOGS between 1986 and 1987 
(VJSA 1988-TN2564; ECS 1989-TN2572) and at SGS between 2003 and 2010 (PSEG 2004- 
TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; 
PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571). 

Black Drum 


Black Drum (Pogonias cromis) is a long-lived fish that ranges along the western Atlantic coasts 
of North and South America and the Gulf of Mexico (Sutter et al. 1986-TN2206). Black Drum is 
a bottom feeder that feeds on small crustaceans, marine worms, and small fishes found in 
sandy or soft bottom habitats in estuaries and coastal rivers (Jones and Wells 1998-TN2212). 
Adults move inshore to spawn in the spring and overwinter offshore. Juveniles occupy tidal 
creeks and salt marsh habitats (Jones and Wells 1998-TN2212). Black Drum is an important 
species in terms of commercial and recreational fisheries and is a valued food fish. Commercial 
harvests in New Jersey and Delaware totaled 3,130 lb and 49,604 lb, respectively, in 2011 
(NOAA 2013-TN2174). Recreational harvests in 2011 totaled 25,244 individuals in New Jersey 
and 936 in Delaware (NOAA 2013-TN2175). 

Trawling, seining, and weir surveys between 2003 and 2010 found Black Drum in Delaware 
River Estuary waters near the PSEG Site and in the offsite small and large marsh creeks near 
the PSEG Site (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007- 
TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011- 
TN2571; PSEG 2013-TN2586). Black Drum were collected in low abundance in impingement 
sampling at SGS and HOGS between 1986 and 1987 (VJSA 1988-TN2564; ECS 1989-TN2572) 
and at SGS between 2003 and 2010 (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006- 
TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010- 
TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571). 


November 2015 


2-99 


NUREG-2168 




Affected Environment 


Black Sea Bass 


The Black Sea Bass (Centropristis striata) is a member of the sea bass family (Serranidae) and 
has an unusual life history. Black Sea Bass start out as females with full reproductive capability 
and then switch to become fertile males sometime around 6 years of age. Off coastal New 
Jersey, spawning occurs between May and June. Adults overwinter in deep offshore waters 
and move inshore in the spring. Both juveniles and adults feed on benthic invertebrates such as 
crustaceans and squid (MDMF 2006-TN2159). Black Sea Bass are highly valued by both 
commercial and recreational fishermen throughout the mid-Atlantic as a food fish. Commercial 
harvests of Black Sea Bass in New Jersey and Delaware totaled 293,609 lb and 3,524 lb, 
respectively, in 2011 (NOAA 2013-TN2174). Recreational harvests in 2011 totaled 
1,568,503 individuals in New Jersey and 326,358 in Delaware (NOAA 2013-TN2175). 

Trawling, seining, and weir surveys between 2003 and 2010 indicate Black Sea Bass are more 
commonly abundant in Delaware River Estuary waters to the south of the PSEG Site. A single 
fish was collected in Delaware River Estuary waters near the PSEG Site, and none were 
collected in the marsh creeks near the PSEG Site (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; 
PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; 

PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571; PSEG 2013-TN2586). Impingement sampling at 
SGS and HOGS between 1986 and 1987 (VJSA 1988-TN2564; ECS 1989-TN2572) and at SGS 
between 2003 and 2010 recorded minimal occurrences of Black Sea Bass (PSEG 2004- 
TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008- 
TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571). 

Bluefish 


The Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) is found worldwide in both tropical and temperate waters. 
Bluefish are found in schools along both inshore and offshore habitats characterized by high 
energy wave action, estuaries, or brackish waters (MDMF 2006-TN2160). Along the Atlantic 
coast, Bluefish spawn between June and August offshore over the continental shelf. 

Juveniles remain offshore and feed on crustaceans, small fish, and mollusks (MDMF 2006- 
TN2160). Adults form large schools and migrate along coastal waters while feeding on 
fish, crustaceans, and cephalopods. Bluefish are fished commercially but are a popular 
recreational species because of their abundance, flavor, and reputation as a sport fish 
(Pottern et al. 1989-TN2193). Commercial harvests in New Jersey and Delaware totaled 
709,418 lb and 10,449 lb, respectively, in 2011 (NOAA 2013-TN2174). Recreational harvests in 
2011 totaled 3,448,169 individuals in New Jersey and 240,574 in Delaware (NOAA 2013- 
TN2175). 

Trawling, seining, and weir surveys between 2003 and 2010 found Bluefish commonly abundant 
in Delaware River Estuary waters south of the PSEG Site and less abundant in Delaware River 
Estuary waters near the PSEG Site and in the offsite small and large marsh creeks near the 
PSEG Site (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007- 
TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011- 
TN2571; PSEG 2013-TN2586). Bluefish were observed in impingement sampling at SGS and 
HOGS between 1986 and 1987 (VJSA 1988-TN2564; ECS 1989-TN2572) and at SGS between 


NUREG-2168 


2-100 


November 2015 




Affected Environment 


2003 and 2010 (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007- 
TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011- 
TN2571). 

Butterdish 


The Butterdish ( Peprilus triacanthus) is a forage fish for other fish species such as Silver Hake 
(Merluccius bilinearis), Bluefish, and Swordfish ( Xiphias gladius). Butterdish range along the 
Atlantic coast from Newfoundland southward to eastern Florida and the Gulf of Mexico. 
Butterdish migrate in schools to inshore habitats in the summer and offshore in the winter 
(Overholtz 2006-TN2189). Spawning occurs offshore from May through October. Adults feed 
mainly on jellyfish, squids, marine worms, and crustaceans (Overholtz 2006-TN2189). 
Commercial harvests in New Jersey and Delaware totaled 64,717 lb and 101 lb, respectively, in 
2011 (NOAA 2013-TN2174). 

Trawling, seining, and weir surveys between 2003 and 2010 detected only three Butterfish in 
Delaware River Estuary waters near the PSEG Site and none in the marsh creeks near the 
PSEG Site (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007- 
TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011- 
TN2571; PSEG 2013-TN2586). Butterfish were observed at low numbers in impingement 
sampling at SGS between 1986 and 1987 (VJSA 1988-TN2564; ECS 1989-TN2572), and at 
SGS between 2003 and 2010 (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006- 
TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010- 
TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571). No Butterfish were detected in impingement samples at HOGS 
between 1986 and 1987 (VJSA 1988-TN2564; ECS 1989-TN2572). 

Channel Catfish 


The Channel Catfish ( Ictalurus punctatus ) is a freshwater species that is also commonly found 
in estuarine waters (MDNR 2013-TN2157). In New Jersey, the Channel Catfish inhabits clear, 
warm lakes and moderate to large rivers characterized by clean sand, gravel, or rock/rubble 
substrate (NJDEP 2013-TN2187). Spawning occurs in late spring when females lay eggs in 
nest sites along depressions, crevices, or undercut banks. Adults feed on plant material and 
prey on other fish, insects, and crustaceans (MDNR 2013-TN2157). Channel Catfish are 
harvested recreationally and commercially, with a commercial harvest in Delaware of 17,329 lb 
in 2011 (NOAA 2013-TN2174). Recreational harvests in 2007 totaled 24,245 individuals in New 
Jersey and 26,800 in Delaware (NOAA 2013-TN2175). 

Trawling, seining, and weir surveys between 2003 and 2010 collected Channel Catfish in 
Delaware River Estuary waters near the PSEG Site, in the offsite large marsh creeks near the 
PSEG Site, and rarely in the small offsite marsh creeks (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005- 
TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009- 
TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571; PSEG 2013-TN2586). Channel Catfish 
were observed at low abundance in impingement sampling at SGS and HCGS between 1986 
and 1987 (VJSA 1988-TN2564; ECS 1989-TN2572) but were more abundant in impingement 
sampling at SGS between 2003 and 2010 (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; 


November 2015 


2-101 


NUREG-2168 




Affected Environment 


PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; 

PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571). 

Conger Eel 

The Conger Eel {Conger oceanicus) is similar to the American Eel in appearance and life 
history. Conger Eels occur along the Atlantic coast from Massachusetts to northern Florida, as 
well as the northern Gulf of Mexico, where they occupy coastal portions of estuaries and waters 
over the continental shelf (Levy et al. 1988-TN2211). Spawning adults migrate to the Sargasso 
Sea from late summer through winter (Hood et al. 1988-TN2213). Larvae metamorphose into 
juveniles and feed primarily on decapod crustaceans, whereas larger eels prefer fish (Levy et 
al. 1988-TN2211). Commercial harvests of Conger Eels in New Jersey and Delaware totaled 
14,447 lb and 85 lb, respectively, in 2011 (NOAA 2013-TN2174). 

Trawling, seining, and weir surveys between 2003 and 2010 indicate no Conger Eel in Delaware 
River Estuary waters near the PSEG Site and in any of the marsh creeks near the PSEG Site 
(PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; 

PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571; PSEG 
2013-TN2586). Conger Eels were rarely collected in impingement sampling at SGS and HCGS 
between 1986 and 1987 (VJSA 1988-TN2564; ECS 1989-TN2572) and at SGS between 2003 
and 2010 (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007- 
TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011- 
TN2571). 

Northern Kinqfish 

The Northern Kingfish (Menticirrhus saxatihs) ranges along the western Atlantic from 
Massachusetts to southern Florida and the Gulf of Mexico. Northern Kingfish occupy shallow 
coastal waters and estuaries characterized by muddy-sand substrates (Corbett 2004-TN2136). 
Spawning occurs between April and August in bays and sounds, just outside of estuary habitats. 
Northern Kingfish prey on crustaceans, small mollusks, marine worms, other fish, and crabs 
(Corbett 2004-TN2136). The Northern Kingfish fishery is primarily recreational, although there 
is a small commercial fishery. Commercial harvests in Delaware totaled 21 lb in 2011 
(NOAA 2013-TN2174). Recreational harvests in 2011 totaled 330,062 individuals in New 
Jersey and 10,145 in Delaware (NOAA 2013-TN2175). 

Trawling, seining, and weir surveys between 2003 and 2010 indicate Northern Kingfish are 
commonly abundant in Delaware River Estuary waters near the PSEG Site, but rare in the 
offsite large marsh creeks near the PSEG Site (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; 
PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; 

PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571; PSEG 2013-TN2586). Northern Kingfish were 
collected at low abundance in impingement sampling at SGS between 1986 and 1987 
(VJSA 1988-TN2564; ECS 1989-TN2572) but were more prevalent at SGS between 2003 and 
2010 (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; 
PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571). 
Northern Kingfish were not collected at HCGS in impingement sampling between 1986 and 
1987 (VJSA 1988-TN2564; ECS 1989-TN2572). 


NUREG-2168 


2-102 


November 2015 




Affected Environment 


Northern Searobin 


The Northern Searobin (Prionotus carolinus ) is a bottom-dwelling fish that prefers habitats 
characterized by sandy flats. Adults move to offshore waters to spawn between late spring and 
summer (CBP 2012-TN2135). The adults prey actively on a variety of crustaceans, mollusks, 
annelid worms, and small fish (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953-TN2129). The commercial harvest 
in New Jersey for all searobins in 2011 totaled 27,370 lb (NOAA 2013-TN2174). Recreational 
harvests for all searobins in 2011 totaled 1.568,503 individuals in New Jersey and 38,658 in 
Delaware (NOAA 2013-TN2175). 

Trawling, seining, and weir surveys between 2003 and 2010 indicate Northern Searobin are 
commonly abundant in Delaware River Estuary waters, but less common near the PSEG Site 
and rare in the offsite large marsh creeks near the PSEG Site (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 
2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009- 
TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571; PSEG 2013-TN2586). Northern Searobin 
were collected at low abundance in impingement sampling at SGS and HCGS between 1986 
and 1987 (VJSA 1988-TN2564; ECS 1989-TN2572) and at SGS between 2003 and 2010 
(PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; 

PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571). 

Scup 

The Scup (Stenotomus chrysops), also known as the Porgy, ranges along the continental shelf 
of North America and is most common between Cape Cod, Massachusetts and Cape Hatteras, 
North Carolina (MDMF 2006-TN2161). Scup form schools in offshore waters to overwinter and 
move to inshore habitats characterized by smooth bottom substrate in the spring and summer. 
Adults spawn every year, with spawning occurring between May and August. Adults feed on 
small crustaceans, mollusks, annelid worms, jellyfish, and sand dollars (MDMF 2006-TN2161). 
Scup is fished commercially and recreationally. The commercial harvest totaled 3,726,460 lb in 
New Jersey and 8 lb in Delaware in 2011 (NOAA 2013-TN2174). Recreational harvests in 2011 
totaled 89,882 individuals in New Jersey and 1,258 in Delaware (NOAA 2013-TN2175). 

Trawling, seining, and weir surveys between 2003 and 2010 indicate Scup are not found in 
Delaware River Estuary waters near the PSEG Site and only a single fish was collected in the 
offsite large marsh creeks near the PSEG Site (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; 
PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569: PSEG 2009-TN2513; 

PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571; PSEG 2013-TN2586). Scup were not observed in 
impingement sampling at SGS and HCGS between 1986 and 1987 (VJSA 1988-TN2564; 

ECS 1989-TN2572) and were detected at low abundance in impingement sampling at SGS 
between 2003 and 2010 (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; 
PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; 

PSEG 2011-TN2571). 

Silver Hake 


The Silver Hake (Merluccius bilinearis ), also known as Whiting, is distributed primarily along the 
northern Atlantic coast from Newfoundland to South Carolina (Col and Traver 2006-TN2148). 


November 2015 


2-103 


NUREG-2168 





Affected Environment 


Silver Hake feed nocturnally on cephalopods and crustaceans and move down the water 
column to rest during the day on sandy, muddy, or pebbly substrate (Col and Traver 2006- 
TN2148). Silver Hake spawn in offshore waters between May and June, and juveniles may 
migrate into the shallower waters of estuaries in late spring or early summer (Col and 
Traver 2006-TN2148). Silver Hake have been harvested commercially since the 1960s due to 
their abundance. However, overfishing resulted in much reduced landings, and this fishery now 
has declined to a fraction of historical landings (Col and Traver 2006-TN2148). The commercial 
harvest in New Jersey totaled 3,037,593 lb in 2011 (NOAA 2013-TN2174). 

Trawling, seining, and weir surveys between 2003 and 2010 indicate Silver Hake are not found 
in Delaware River Estuary waters near the PSEG Site and were not detected in any marsh 
creeks near the PSEG Site (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; 
PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; 

PSEG 2011-TN2571; PSEG 2013-TN2586). Silver Hake were detected at low abundance in 
impingement sampling at SGS and HCGS between 1986 and 1987 (VJSA 1988-TN2564; 

ECS 1989-TN2572) and at SGS between 2003 and 2010 (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005- 
TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009- 
TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571). 

Spot 

Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus) occupy estuarine and coastal habitats characterized by sandy or 
muddy bottoms up to depths of 60 m (197 ft). Juveniles move closer to inshore habitats during 
the winter and move offshore in late fall as they mature and prepare for spawning activities. 

The diet of the juvenile and adult Spot includes crustaceans, polychaetes, and mollusks (Phillips 
et al. 1989-TN2192). The commercial harvests in New Jersey and Delaware totaled 54,890 lb 
and 81,868 lb, respectively, in 2011 (NOAA 2013-TN2174). A total of 347,596 Spot in Delaware 
and 1,484 in New Jersey were harvested recreationally in 2011 (NOAA 2013-TN2175). 

Trawling, seining, and weir surveys between 2003 and 2010 indicate Spot are found in 
Delaware River Estuary waters near the PSEG Site and were detected in offsite small and large 
marsh creeks near the PSEG Site (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006- 
TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010- 
TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571; PSEG 2013-TN2586). Spot were detected in impingement 
sampling at SGS and HCGS between 1986 and 1987 (VJSA 1988-TN2564; ECS 1989-TN2572) 
and at SGS between 2003 and 2010 (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006- 
TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010- 
TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571). 

Striped Bass 

The Striped Bass (Morone saxatilis) is an anadromous fish that ranges along the Atlantic coast 
of North America and in the Gulf of Mexico from western Florida to Louisiana. The mid-Atlantic 
coastal waters are considered the major spawning grounds for this species—spawning occurs 
between April and June in or near freshwater (Fay et al. 1983-TN2144). Juveniles prey on 
small crustaceans, annelid worms, and insects; adults feed on a variety of other fishes and 
invertebrates (Fay et al. 1983-TN2144). The commercial harvest in Delaware in 2011 totaled 


NUREG-2168 


2-104 


November 2015 




Affected Environment 


185,298 lb (NOAA 2013-TN2174). Recreational harvest in 2011 totaled 1,287.598 individuals in 
New Jersey and 126,949 in Delaware (NOAA 2013-TN2175). 

Trawling, seining, and weir surveys between 2003 and 2010 indicate Striped Bass are common 
in Delaware River Estuary waters near the PSEG Site, in the onsite small marsh creeks, and in 
the offsite small and large marsh creeks near the PSEG Site (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 
2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009- 
TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571; PSEG 2013-TN2586). Striped Bass were 
collected at low abundance in impingement sampling at SGS and HCGS between 1986 and 
1987 (VJSA 1988-TN2564; ECS 1989-TN2572) but were highly abundant in impingement 
sampling at SGS between 2003 and 2010 (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; 

PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; 

PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571). 

Summer Flounder 

The Summer Flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) ranges along the Atlantic coast from Maine to 
northern Florida. The Summer Flounder prefers sandy substrate for burrowing but may also 
use mud or silt substrates found in estuary habitats (Grimes et al. 1989-TN2150). Spawning 
behaviors are not clearly understood but are assumed to occur sometime between late fall and 
early spring in bottom habitats along continental shelf waters (Grimes et al. 1989-TN2150). 
Larvae drift into estuarine habitats where juvenile development takes place. Adults feed on 
smaller fish, squids, crustaceans, moliusks, marine worms, and sand dollars (Grimes et 
al. 1989-TN2150). It is an excellent food fish and an important species in both recreational and 
commercial harvests. Commercial harvests in New Jersey and Delaware totaled 2.830,403 lb 
and 836 lb, respectively, in 2011 (NOAA 2013-TN2174). Recreational harvests in 2011 totaled 
9,101.622 individuals in New Jersey and 808,442 in Delaware (NOAA 2013-TN2175). 

Trawling, seining, and weir surveys between 2003 and 2010 indicate Summer Flounder are not 
commonly found in Delaware River Estuary waters near the PSEG Site but have been detected 
in offsite small and large marsh creeks near the PSEG Site (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005- 
TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009- 
TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571; PSEG 2013-TN2586). Summer Flounder 
were detected in impingement sampling at SGS and HCGS between 1986 and 1987 
(VJSA 1988-TN2564; ECS 1989-TN2572) and at SGS between 2003 and 2010 (PSEG 2004- 
TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008- 
TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571). 

Weakfish 


The Weakfish (Cynoscion regalis) is a member of the drum family (Sciaenidae). Weakfish 
range along the Atlantic coast of the United States and are most abundant between New York 
and North Carolina (MDNR 2013-TN2158). Spawning occurs between May and mid-July 
following a northern migration to nearshore coastal waters and estuarine areas in the Delaware 
Bay (Mercer 1989-TN2162). Larvae and juveniles primarily feed on small crustaceans and 
anchovies. Adults prey on other fish such as the Atlantic Menhaden and Bay Anchovy 
(MDNR 2013-TN2158). Weakfish are harvested recreationally and commercially and are an 


November 2015 


2-105 


NUREG-2168 




Affected Environment 


important food fish. Commercial harvests in New Jersey and Delaware totaled 13,324 lb and 
795 lb, respectively, in 2011 (NOAA 2013-TN2174). Recreational harvests in 2011 totaled 
209,616 individuals in New Jersey and 10,740 in Delaware (NOAA 2013-TN2175). 

Trawling, seining, and weir surveys between 2003 and 2010 indicate Weakfish are abundant in 
Delaware River Estuary waters and offsite large marsh creeks near the PSEG Site but are less 
abundant in offsite small marsh creeks near the PSEG Site (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005- 
TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009- 
TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571; PSEG 2013-TN2586). Weakfish had high 
impingement rates at SGS and HCGS between 1986 and 1987 (VJSA 1988-TN2564; 

ECS 1989-TN2572) and at SGS between 2003 and 2010 (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005- 
TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009- 
TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571). 

White Perch 


The White Perch (Morone americana) has a native range that includes Atlantic slope drainages 
from Canada to South Carolina (Stanley and Danie 1983-TN2195). Spawning occurs primarily 
in freshwater habitats in estuaries, rivers, lakes, and marshes but also can occur occasionally in 
brackish water between May and July. The eggs attach to bottom substrates, and larvae and 
juveniles remain in the inshore areas of these areas for up to 1 year (Stanley and Danie 1983- 
TN2195). White Perch return to brackish waters to overwinter in deep pools of tidal creeks or 
tributaries and bays. Adults prey on fish eggs and larvae/juveniles of other fish species, young 
squids, and crustaceans (Stanley and Danie 1983-TN2195). White Perch are harvested 
commercially and recreationally and are trophically important as both prey and predator. 
Commercial harvests in Delaware totaled 152,400 lb in 2011 (NOAA 2013-TN2174). 
Recreational harvests in 2011 totaled 731,360 individuals in New Jersey and 320,605 in 
Delaware (NOAA 2013-TN2175). 

Trawling, seining, and weir surveys between 2003 and 2010 indicate White Perch are abundant 
in Delaware River Estuary waters and offsite small and large marsh creeks near the PSEG Site 
but are less abundant in onsite small marsh creeks and desilt basins near the PSEG Site 
(PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; 

PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571; PSEG 
2013-TN2586). White Perch had high impingement density rates at SGS between 1986 and 
1987 (VJSA 1988-TN2564; ECS 1989-TN2572) and at SGS between 2003 and 2010 
(PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; 

PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571). 

Windowpane Flounder 

The Windowpane Flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus) is found in estuaries, nearshore waters, 
and waters along the continental shelf of the northwestern Atlantic from the Gulf of St. 

Lawrence in Canada to northern Florida (Hendrickson 2006-TN2153). Adults prefer muddy or 
fine-grain sandy substrates in waters within a salinity range of 5.5 to 36 ppt (Chang et al. 1999- 
TN2133). Spawning starts in February or March and peaks in May over inner continental shelf 
waters (Chang et al. 1999-TN2133). Adults prey on small crustaceans, annelid worms, sea 


NUREG-2168 


2-106 


November 2015 





Affected Environment 


cucumbers, squids, and other small mollusks. Although it is not currently a major target of the 
commercial fishing industry, 11,902 lb were harvested commercially in New Jersey in 2009 
(NOAA 2013-TN2174). 

Trawling, seining, and weir surveys between 2003 and 2010 indicate Windowpane Flounder are 
not commonly found in Delaware River Estuary waters near the PSEG Site and are rare in 
offsite large marsh creeks near the PSEG Site (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; 
PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; 

PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571; PSEG 2013-TN2586). Windowpane Flounder were 
detected at low abundance in impingement sampling at SGS and HCGS between 1986 and 
1987 (VJSA 1988-TN2564; ECS 1989-TN2572) and at SGS between 2003 and 2010 
(PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; 

PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571). 

Winter Flounder 


The Winter Flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) ranges along the Atlantic coast from 
Labrador, Canada to the State of Georgia. Winter Flounder prefer a variety of bottom 
substrates in inshore bays and estuaries during the winter and migrate to deeper water in the 
summer (Hendrickson et al. 2006-TN2154). Winter Flounder spawn in inshore waters at night 
between November and June (Grimes et al. 1989-TN2150). Eggs adhere to each other to form 
large clumps on the bottom. Juveniles remain in their natal shallow waters during their first 
summer and feed on diatoms, small crustaceans, and mollusks. Adults prey on small 
crustaceans, annelid worms, small mollusks, and fish (Hendrickson et al. 2006-TN2154). The 
Winter Flounder is a major commercial species and is the most important recreationally caught 
flounder in inshore waters of the mid-Atlantic (Grimes et al. 1989-TN2150). The commercial 
harvest in New Jersey totaled 6,051 lb in 2011 (NOAA 2013-TN2174). The recreational harvest 
totaled 83,086 individuals in New Jersey in 2007 (NOAA 2013-TN2175). 

Trawling, seining, and weir surveys between 2003 and 2010 indicate Winter Flounder are not 
found in Delaware River Estuary waters near the PSEG Site or in offsite marsh creeks near the 
PSEG Site (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007- 
TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011- 
TN2571; PSEG 2013-TN2586). Winter Flounder were detected at low abundance in 
impingement sampling at SGS and HCGS between 1986 and 1987 (VJSA 1988-TN2564; 

ECS 1989-TN2572) and at SGS between 2003 and 2010 (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005- 
TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009- 
TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571). 

Harvested Invertebrates 

Five species of invertebrates occurring in the region have been harvested commercially in New 
Jersey and Delaware. These species are blue crab, eastern oyster, channeled whelk, knobbed 
whelk, and northern quahog clam (NOAA 2013-TN2174). A sixth species, the horseshoe crab, 
is harvested in Delaware. Since 2008 there has been a moratorium in place on the harvest of 
horseshoe crabs in New Jersey (ASMFC 2014-TN3511). 


November 2015 


2-107 


NUREG-2168 





Affected Environment 


Blue Crab 


The blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) ranges along coastal waters of the Atlantic coast from 
Massachusetts to South America, including the Gulf of Mexico. Blue crabs reside in benthic 
estuarine habitats characterized by low salinity waters in bays and estuaries to higher salinities 
in ocean waters (Hill et al. 1989-TN2155). After mating, females migrate to salinity habitats of 
greater than 20 ppt. The female broods the fertilized eggs and then releases the larvae, which 
are carried away with the current. The juveniles return to the estuarine habitat for further growth 
and development. Blue crabs feed on bivalves and a variety of detrital matter (Hill et al. 1989- 
TN2155). The blue crab is the most common edible crab along the east coast of the United 
States and in the Gulf of Mexico. The blue crab is a major commercial species nationally and in 
the mid-Atlantic region, with harvests of 9,599,249 lb in New Jersey and 3,501,968 lb in 
Delaware in 2011 (NOAA 2013-TN2174). 

Trawling, seining, and weir surveys between 2003 and 2010 indicate blue crabs are abundant in 
Delaware River Estuary waters near the PSEG Site and in offsite small and large marsh creeks 
near the PSEG Site (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; 

PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; 

PSEG 2011-TN2571; PSEG 2013-TN2586). Blue crab had high impingement density rates at 
SGS and HCGS between 1986 and 1987 (VJSA 1988-TN2564; ECS 1989-TN2572) and, while 
still commonly impinged at SGS between 2003 and 2010, the density rate declined compared 
with density rates in the mid-1980s (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006- 
TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010- 
TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571). 

Eastern Oyster 

The eastern, or American, oyster (Crassostrea virginica) is a marine bivalve that settles in 
shallow saltwater bays, lagoons, and estuaries along the Atlantic coast from Canada to the 
Florida Keys and in the Gulf of Mexico (Stanley and Sellers 1986-TN2196). Oysters settle in 
waters with a salinity at least as high as 10 ppt and attach to hard substrates in aggregations 
known as oyster reefs. Adults tolerate a wide range of salinity conditions, but optimal embryo 
development requires a salinity range of 15 to 23 ppt. The eastern oyster reproduces by 
broadcast spawning of sperm and eggs into the water column from late spring into the fall 
(Stanley and Sellers 1986-TN2196). 

Larvae typically settle on established oyster reefs or where shell substrate is present. Oysters 
filter feed to collect planktonic diatoms, ostracods, and small eggs (Stanley and Sellers 1986- 
TN2196). Under optimum conditions, oysters can live for up to 20 years (Stanley and 
Sellers 1986-TN2196). The eastern oyster supports a commercial fishery along the Atlantic 
coast and in the Gulf of Mexico. The commercial fishery for eastern oyster reported a harvest of 
62,349 lb in 2011 for Delaware and, according to NOAA commercial records, the last-reported 
commercial fishery in New Jersey reported a harvest of 550,086 lb in 2008 (NOAA 2013- 
TN2174). Additional records of harvests for oysters in Delaware Bay from direct marketing of 
natural seed beds report a somewhat consistent average harvest of around 83,000 bushels per 
year between 2008 and 2013 (HSRL 2014-TN4199). 


NUREG-2168 


2-108 


November 2015 






Affected Environment 


In Delaware Bay, oyster harvest has been an important industry. Natural populations were 
quickly overharvested, leading to establishment of aquaculture and fishery management 
practices in the early 1900s. However, increasing industrial pollution and lack of public health 
sanitation practices led to declines in the fishery as well as the contribution of protozoan 
parasites that further reduced commercial oyster landings (Canzonier 2004-TN2132). 
Significant efforts have been made to restore oyster habitat and conditions for propagation in 
the Delaware River Estuary to re-establish this fishery (PDE 2011-TN2190). 

Trawling surveys between 2003 and 2010 found no eastern oysters in Delaware River Estuary 
waters near the PSEG Site or in offsite small and large marsh creeks near the PSEG Site 
(PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; 

PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571; PSEG 
2013-TN2586). However, the Hope Creek, Fishing Creek, and Liston Range oyster beds lie 
about 6 mi to the south of Artificial Island and SGS (HSRL 2014-TN4199). 

Horseshoe Crab 


The horseshoe crab (Limulus polyphemus) is a marine arthropod that occupies both shallow 
sandy aquatic habitats and deeper nearshore coastal waters. Horseshoe crabs occur in the 
Gulf of Mexico and along the northern Atlantic coast of North America. Spawning involves 
onshore migration that starts in the spring and concludes in the summer, usually during evening 
high tides (CBP 2013-TN2134). Females lay eggs in the sand that take about a month to 
incubate before hatching. Horseshoe crabs are scavengers and feed on small mollusks, 
worms, dead fish, and algae (CBP 2013-TN2134). The horseshoe crab is also a major 
commercial species in the region, with a harvest of 292,704 lb in Delaware in 2011 
(NOAA 2013-TN2174). 

There have been no reports of horseshoe crab in Delaware River Estuary waters near the 
PSEG Site or in offsite small and large marsh creeks near the PSEG Site (PSEG 2004-TN2565; 
PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 
2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571; PSEG 2013-TN2586). 

Northern Quahoq Clam 

The northern quahog clam (Mercenaria mercenaria), also known as the hard clam, is a heavily 
cultured species along the Atlantic coast (FAO 2004-TN2141). The northern quahog clam 
ranges along the Atlantic coast from Canada to southern Florida and along the coastal Gulf of 
Mexico. Northern quahog clams prefer the intertidal zone of coastal lagoons and estuaries on 
mud and sand flats with a salinity range between 12 and 30 ppt (FAO 2004-TN2141). 

Broadcast spawning occurs for external fertilization, and juveniles secrete byssal threads to 
assist in attaching to the bottom. As is common in bivalves, the northern quahog clam feeds by 
filtering water for phytoplankton (FAO 2004-TN2141). The northern quahog clam is harvested 
commercially in the region, with harvests of 1,516,071 lb in New Jersey in 2008 and 38,512 lb in 
Delaware in 2011 (NOAA 2013-TN2174). 

There have been no reports of northern quahog clam in Delaware River Estuary waters near the 
PSEG Site, or in offsite small and large marsh creeks near the PSEG Site (PSEG 2004- 


November 2015 


2-109 


NUREG-2168 






Affected Environment 


TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008- 
TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571; PSEG 2013- 
TN2586). 

Whelk 

Both the knobbed ( Busycon carica) and channeled ( Busycotypus canaliculatus) whelk have 
been harvested commercially in New Jersey and Delaware waters with landings between 2006 
and 2013 totaling close to 4 million pounds for knobbed whelk and more than 1.8 million pounds 
for channeled whelk (NOAA 2013-TN2174). Both whelk species occur along the Atlantic Coast 
from Cape Cod, Massachusetts, to central Florida and prefer estuarine or shallow shelf water 
habitats between 1 and 50 m. Fertilized eggs develop within egg capsule strings that are 
anchored to the ocean floor. Whelk feed on bivalves and may be found associated with oyster 
reefs and clam beds (Anderson et al. 2015-TN4200; Davis and Sisson 1988-TN4201). 

There have been no reports of knobbed or channeled whelk in Delaware River Estuary waters 
near the PSEG Site or in offsite small and large marsh creeks near the PSEG Site (PSEG 2004- 
TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008- 
TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571; PSEG 2013- 
TN2586). 

Ecologically Important Species 

The Alewife ( Alosa pseudoharengus), Atlantic Silverside, Bay Anchovy, and Blueback Herring 
are considered important species because they are (1) essential to the maintenance and 
survival of rare or commercially or recreationally valuable species, (2) critical to the structure 
and function of the local aquatic ecosystems, or (3) both. 

Alewife 


The Alewife ( Alosa pseudoharengus) is an anadromous fish closely related to the Blueback 
Herring. Alewife range along Atlantic coastal, riverine, and estuarine habitats. Broadcast 
spawning occurs during spring and early summer months in freshwater habitats characterized 
by gravel, sand, or submerged vegetation substrate (Fay et al. 1983-TN2142). Juveniles 
remain in freshwater nursery habitats until fall, when they migrate to brackish and marine waters 
(Fay et al. 1983-TN2142). Alewife form schools and feed on crustaceans, insects, small fishes, 
and fish eggs, and they are forage prey for larger marine species (Fay et al. 1983-TN2142). 

In 2011, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) published a petition to consider listing 
the Alewife (76 FR 67652-TN2080) under the Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531 et 
seq. -TNI010). However, NOAA determined in August of 2013 that listing the Alewife as 
threatened or endangered was not warranted at the time (78 FR 48944-TN2607). 

Trawling, seining, and weir surveys between 2003 and 2010 indicate Alewife are common in 
Delaware River Estuary waters and in offsite small and large marsh creeks near the PSEG Site 
(PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; 

PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571; PSEG 


NUREG-2168 


2-110 


November 2015 







Affected Environment 


2013-TN2586). Alewife were commonly impinged at SGS and less frequently impinged at 
HCGS between 1986 and 1987 (VJSA 1988-TN2564; ECS 1989-TN2572) and commonly 
impinged at SGS between 2003 and 2010 (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; 
PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569: PSEG 2009-TN2513; 
PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571). 

Atlantic Silverside 


The Atlantic Silverside (Menidia menidia) is a schooling fish that occupies the shore zone of salt 
marshes, estuaries, and tidal creeks along the eastern United States and is a key forage 
species for Striped Bass, Atlantic Mackerel, and Bluefish (Fay et al. 1983-TN2143). In the 
mid-Atlantic region, spawning occurs between late March and June during daylight hours 
coinciding with high tide. Eggs adhere to substrates in estuarine intertidal zones such as 
submerged aquatic vegetation. Adults are omnivorous and prey on a number of small marine 
invertebrates, insects, algae, and diatoms (Fay et al. 1983-TN2143). 

Trawling, seining, and weir surveys between 2003 and 2010 indicate Atlantic Silverside are not 
common in Delaware River Estuary waters near the PSEG Site but are abundant in the offsite 
small and large marsh creeks near the PSEG Site (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566: 
PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; 

PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571; PSEG 2013-TN2586). Atlantic Silverside were 
commonly impinged at SGS and HCGS between 1986 and 1987 (VJSA 1988-TN2564; 

ECS 1989-TN2572) and at SGS between 2003 and 2010 (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005- 
TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009- 
TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571). 

Bay Anchovy 

The Bay Anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) is a small schooling fish. Bay Anchovy occupy euryhaline, 
estuarine, and connected freshwater habitats and can tolerate relatively anoxic conditions in 
pollution-stressed areas. Spawning occurs in waters less than 20 ft deep from early spring 
through late summer (Morton 1989-TN2164), and females spawn every 4 to 5 days during the 
spawning season (Zastrow et al. 1991-TN2670). The Bay Anchovy is a key species in aquatic 
food webs where juveniles and adults feed primarily on zooplankton, small crustaceans, and 
detritus and are food sources for predatory fish (Robinette 1983-TN339). 

Trawling, seining, and weir surveys between 2003 and 2010 indicate Bay Anchovy are highly 
abundant in Delaware River Estuary waters and in offsite small and large marsh creeks near the 
PSEG Site (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007- 
TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011- 
TN2571; PSEG 2013-TN2586). Bay Anchovy had high impingement density rates at SGS and 
HCGS between 1986 and 1987 (VJSA 1988-TN2564; ECS 1989-TN2572), and while still 
commonly impinged at SGS between 2003 and 2010, had lower density impingement rates than 
compared to the mid-1980s (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; 
PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; 

PSEG 2011-TN2571). 


November 2015 


2-111 


NUREG-2168 




Affected Environment 


Blueback Herring 

The Blueback Herring ( Alosa aestivalis ), like the Alewife, is an anadromous fish that lives 
primarily in marine and estuarine waters but returns to freshwater to spawn (Fay et al. 1983- 
TN2142). The Blueback Herring ranges along the Atlantic Coast from Canada to Florida. 
Blueback Herring spawn in the spring in flowing freshwater habitats characterized by hard 
substrate (Fay et al. 1983-TN2142). Juveniles migrate to brackish and marine waters and 
mature to adulthood, when they form schools and prey on plankton and small crustaceans and 
are forage prey for larger marine species (Fay et al. 1983-TN2142). 

Blueback Herring are commercially harvested in Delaware, with 728 lb taken in 2011 
(NOAA 2013-TN2174). In 2011, NMFS published a petition to consider listing the Blueback 
Herring (76 FR 67652-TN2080) under the Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531 et seq. - 
TNI010). However, NOAA determined in August 2013 that listing the Blueback Herring as 
threatened or endangered was not warranted at the time (78 FR 48944-TN2607). 

Trawling, seining, and weir surveys between 2003 and 2010 indicate Blueback Herring are 
common in Delaware River Estuary waters and in offsite small and large marsh creeks near the 
PSEG Site (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007- 
TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011- 
TN2571; PSEG 2013-TN2586). Blueback Herring had a high density rate of impingement at 
SGS between 1986 and 1987 and between 2003 and 2010 but were less frequently impinged at 
HCGS between 1986 and 1987 (VJSA 1988-TN2564; ECS 1989-TN2572; PSEG 2004-TN2565; 
PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 
2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571). 

Non-Native and Nuisance Species 

The high turbidity in the Delaware River Estuary precludes the development of algal blooms 
near the PSEG Site (Miller et al. 2012-TN2686). No Asian clams ( Corbicula spp.) or invasive 
blue mussels {Mytilus spp.) have been encountered near Artificial Island in studies from the 
1980s to 2009 (IAI 1980-TN2608; PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006- 
TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010- 
TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571). 

A single Asian shore crab ( Hemigrapsus sanguineus) was collected in surveys at one marsh 
creek sampling station in May 2009 (PSEG 2013-TN2586). In addition, three other invasive 
species—the Chinese mitten crab (Eriocheir sinensis), the Northern Snakehead ( Channa 
argus), and the Flathead Catfish ( Pylodictis olivaris) —have been reported in the Delaware River 
Estuary. Mitten crabs are considered potential competitors with blue crabs and can damage 
estuarine and stream habitat by extensive burrowing. Four mature male mitten crabs were 
captured in commercial crab pots in late May 2007 from waters near New Castle County, 
Delaware and 10 more were captured in 2010 in Delaware Bay (USGS 2012-TN2200). The 
Northern Snakehead prefers stagnant waters (e.g., shallow ponds and swamps) and slow 
streams and has a wide temperature tolerance. Northern Snakeheads have been observed in 
New Jersey Delaware River Estuary tributaries starting in 2009 but are not believed to be 
established in Delaware (USGS 2012-TN2201). Flathead Catfish are reported to occur in the 


NUREG-2168 


2-112 


November 2015 




Affected Environment 


Delaware River Basin, primarily in the main stem of the Delaware River (NJDEP 2012-TN2185). 
Like the Northern Snakehead, Flathead Catfish are voracious predators that could hinder the 
shad, sturgeon, American Eel, and Striped Bass restoration efforts in the Delaware River 
Estuary. 

Federally and State-Listed Species 

The NRC requested information from the FWS by letters dated October 26, 2010 (NRC 2010- 
TN2202) and July 31, 2013 (NRC 2013-TN2805) regarding endangered, threatened, candidate, 
and proposed species, as well as designated and proposed critical habitat that may be in the 
vicinity of the PSEG Site. In support of the HCGS and SGS license renewal applications, FWS 
provided information on June 29, 2010, regarding protected species in the vicinity. Information 
from these consultations was used as the basis for identifying important species and habitats 
(FWS 2010-TN2204). 

By letter dated October 26, 2010 (NRC 2010-TN2203), the NRC initiated informal Endangered 
Species Act (16 USC 1531 et seq. -TN1010) section 7 consultation with NMFS and requested a 
list of endangered, threatened, candidate, and proposed species as well as designated and 
proposed critical habitat that may be in the vicinity of the PSEG Site. NMFS provided the 
requested information for species under their jurisdiction by letters dated December 9, 2010 
(NMFS 2010-TN2171) and October 25, 2013 (NMFS 2013-TN2804). NMFS received the draft 
EIS (NRC and USACE 2014-TN4279) and BA (NRC and USACE 2014-TN4313) and provided 
comments on November 12, 2014 (NMFS 2014-TN4203), and additional clarification on 
comments January 26, 2015 (NRC 2015-TN4209). A revised species list is presented in 
Table 2-12. The BA (dated June 2014) and the supplemental BA (dated August 2015) are 
provided in Appendix F. 


Table 2-12. Federally and State-Listed Species in the Vicinity of the PSEG Site and 
Existing Transmission Corridors 


Scientific Name 

Common Name 

Federal 

Status (a) 

Delaware/New 
Jersey State 
Status (b) 

Reptiles 




Caretta caretta 

Loggerhead sea turtle (c) 

FT 

SE/SE 

Chelonia mydas 

Atlantic green sea turtle (d) 

FE 

SE/ST 

Lepidochelys kempii 

Kemp’s ridley turtle 

FE 

SE/SE 

Fish 




Acipenser brevirostrum 

Shortnose Sturgeon 

FE 

SE/SE 

Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus 

Atlantic Sturgeon (e) 


SE/SE 


(a) Federal status rankings determined by the NMFS under the Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531 et 
seq. -TN1010); FE = Federally endangered, FT = Federally threatened (NMFS 2013-TN2614; FWS 2013- 
TN2147). 

(b) State status rankings determined by DNREC for Delaware and NJDEP for New Jersey; SE = State 
endangered, ST = State threatened (DNREC 2013-TN3067; NJDEP 2012-TN2186). 

(c) Northwest Atlantic distinct population segment (DPS). 

(d) Proposed DPS for North Atlantic (T) (80 FR 15271-TN4272). 

(e) Gulf of Maine DPS (T), New York Bight DPS (E), Chesapeake Bay DPS (E), Carolina DPS (E), and South 
Atlantic DPS (E) (77 FR 5880-TN2081; 77 FR 5914-TN4365). 


November 2015 


2-113 


NUREG-2168 














Affected Environment 


Sea Turtles 

The Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) is listed as Federally and State endangered. 
The Federally threatened Northwest Atlantic distinct population segment (DPS) of the 
loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) is listed as State endangered for both New Jersey and 
Delaware. The Atlantic green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas ) is listed as endangered at both the 
Federal and State of Delaware levels and is listed as threatened in the State of New Jersey. All 
sea turtles have certain life history similarities in that females swim ashore to sandy beaches 
and deposit eggs in nesting pits that are covered to allow incubation. Juveniles hatch, struggle 
out of the sandy nest, and make their way to their respective ocean habitats. Although there are 
no known records of sea turtles nesting along Delaware Bay beaches, sea turtles have been 
observed to forage in Delaware Bay waters. A brief overview is provided for the sea turtle 
species, with more discussion of life history attributes and potential for impacts in Appendix F as 
part of the BA for NMFS. 

Loggerhead Turtle . The Northwest Atlantic DPS of the loggerhead sea turtle has extensive 
migration habits that extend along coastal Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico habitats in the United 
States (NMFS and FWS 2008-TN360). During the summer, Atlantic loggerhead turtles migrate 
from their nesting beaches from south of Virginia northward to estuary habitats and shelf waters. 
Subadult and adult loggerheads are primarily bottom feeders, foraging in coastal waters for 
benthic mollusks and crustaceans (NMFS and FWS 2008-TN360). It is unclear whether the 
turtles over-winter in Delaware Bay, but both Delaware Bay and Chesapeake Bay are important 
summer habitat for juveniles. There is no reported loggerhead turtle nesting along Delaware 
Bay beaches, though they do forage in the bay. Loggerhead turtles are the most commonly 
observed sea turtle species in the vicinity of SGS. In 1991, 23 loggerhead sea turtles were 
recovered from the SGS cooling water intake area. Mitigation measures to reduce incidental 
intake of sea turtles at the SGS were implemented between 1992 and 1993 (NMFS 1999- 
TN2711). Between 1992 and 2001, 16 loggerhead turtles were stranded at the SGS (NRC 
2010-TN2811); however, none have been stranded since 2001 (NMFS 2014-TN4238), and 
none have been reported stranded at HCGS (NRC 2010-TN2811). The conditions of the 
animals and reasons for their take are not known. In the early 1990s, sonic and satellite 
tracking studies of loggerhead sea turtles incidentally taken at the SGS were conducted 
(PSEG 2007-TN3122). These studies indicate the released turtles did not show a particular 
affinity for the SGS intake but rather moved throughout the estuary. Further discussion of the 
potential impacts of a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site is provided in Appendix F 
under the BA for NMFS. 

Atlantic Green Turtle . The green turtle is a circumglobal species found in tropical and 
subtropical waters along continental coasts and islands. In the United States, green sea turtles 
primarily nest from along the eastern coastline of Florida to the Georgia border (NMFS and 
FWS 1991-TN358). For nesting, females require the high-energy (wave-active), sandy beaches 
of barrier islands and mainland shores above the high-water line. Upon emergence, hatchlings 
immediately seek out the shore and open water (NMFS and FWS 1991-TN358). Juvenile green 
sea turtles drift with the prevailing surface-water currents until they reach a size of 12 to 16 in. at 
1 to 3 years; then they return to shallow coastal waters, where they spend most of their lives in 
shallow benthic feeding grounds. Adult green turtles feed almost exclusively on sea grass and 
algae (NMFS and FWS 1991-TN358). 


NUREG-2168 


2-114 


November 2015 










Affected Environment 


The green turtle is not reported to nest along Delaware Bay beaches but may move into the bay 
to feed. Green turtles are occasionally observed in Delaware Bay. A total of two Atlantic green 
turtles have been captured at SGS since it began operations, one in 1991 (alive) and one in 
1992 (dead) (NMFS 2014-TN4238). Further discussion of the potential impacts of a new 
nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site is provided in Appendix F under the BA for NMFS. 

Kemp’s Ridley Turtle . In the continental United States, the Kemp’s ridley turtle is found 
throughout the Gulf of Mexico and United States Atlantic seaboard from Florida to New England 
(NMFS et al. 2011-TN2169). Nearly all reproduction of Kemp’s ridley turtles takes place along a 
single 9.3-mi stretch of beach near Rancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas, Mexico, about 200 mi south of 
Brownsville, Texas (NMFS et al. 2011-TN2169). Hatchlings migrate rapidly down the beach 
and out to sea, where they spend a period of about 2 years in the pelagic zone. During the 
pelagic period, they feed on zooplankton and floating matter, including Sargassum weed and 
the associated biotic community. After a pelagic feeding stage, the juvenile ridleys move into 
shallow coastal waters to feed and grow. The young subadults often forage in water less than 
3 ft deep, but they tend to move into deeper water as they grow and are observed associated 
with portunid crabs (Callinectes spp.), their most common prey. 

The Kemp’s ridley turtle is not reported to nest along Delaware Bay beaches, but it has been 
observed foraging in Delaware Bay. In 1992, two live and two dead Kemp’s ridley turtles were 
found at the SGS cooling water intake; the cause of mortality was not reported (PSEG 1992- 
TN3173). In 1993, a live Kemp’s ridley turtle was found at the SGS cooling water intake (PSEG 
1999-TN2787). Implementation of mitigation measures in 1993 reduced the likelihood of 
additional turtle standings; however, two Kemp’s ridley turtles were stranded at the SGS in 
2013 (PSEG 2013-TN2690; PSEG 2013-TN3137) and two more in 2014 (PSEG 2015-TN4262). 
There have been no records of impingement for Kemp’s ridley turtles at HCGS (NRC 2010- 
TN2811). Further discussion of the potential impacts of a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG 
Site is provided in Appendix F under the BA for NMFS. 

Shortnose Sturgeon 

The Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) was initially listed as a Federally endangered 
species in 1967 and is designated as a New Jersey and Delaware State endangered species 
(NOAA 2012-TN2173; NJDEP 2012-TN2186; DNREC 2013-TN3067). Adult Shortnose Sturgeon 
use freshwater for spawning and estuarine and marine habitats for feeding. Juveniles migrate 
downriver to estuarine waters and may go back and forth between freshwater and estuarine 
habitats for several years before maturing to adults. Adults sometimes migrate to marine 
habitats for feeding but live the majority of their life cycle in estuarine habitats (Rohde et al. 1994- 
TN2208; NOAA 2012-TN2173). Migration to spawning habitat occurs in late winter and spring, 
and adults return to estuarine waters in May and June (Gilbert 1989-TN2149). Spawning occurs 
in freshwaters characterized by low-to-moderate velocities and over substrates that include clay, 
sand, gravel, and woody debris. Eggs are adhesive and survival is reportedly dependent on 
water having little turbidity (Rohde et al. 1994-TN2208). Sturgeon feed on benthic invertebrates 
such as snails, insect larvae, crustaceans, and worms (Gilbert 1989-TN2149). 

Shortnose Sturgeon occur in the Delaware River Estuary system (NOAA 2012-TN2173). A 
Shortnose Sturgeon was collected in a bottom trawl from the Delaware River Estuary just to the 


November 2015 


2-115 


NUREG-2168 








Affected Environment 


south of the PSEG Site in 2004 (PSEG 2005-TN2566). Two Shortnose Sturgeon were collected 
in 2008 and one was collected in 2010 from bottom trawl sampling between RKM 100 and RKM 
120 (RM 62.1 and RM 74.6) to the north of the PSEG Site (PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2011- 
TN2571). From the commencement of operations in 1977 through 2014, 32 Shortnose 
Sturgeon impingements have been reported at SGS—no Shortnose Sturgeon impingements 
have been reported at HCGS (NRC 2010-TN2811; PSEG 2011-TN3365; PSEG 2011-TN3146; 
PSEG 2013-TN2707; PSEG 2013-TN2691; PSEG 2013-TN2692; PSEG 2013-TN2695; PSEG 
2013-TN2704; PSEG 2014-TN4246; PSEG 2014-TN4253; PSEG 2014-TN4254; PSEG 2014- 
TN4255; PSEG 2014-TN4256; PSEG 2014-TN4257; PSEG 2014-TN4260, ). Further 
discussion of the potential impacts of a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site is provided in 
Appendix F under the BA for NMFS. 

Atlantic Sturgeon 

The Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) is currently listed as a Federally 
protected species with five DPSs. The Gulf of Maine DPS is considered threatened, and the 
other DPSs (i.e., New York Bight, Chesapeake Bay, Carolina, and South Atlantic) are listed as 
endangered (77 FR 5880-TN2081; 77 FR 5914-TN4365). Adult or subadult Atlantic Sturgeon 
occurring in the Delaware River Estuary may be a part of any of the five DPS populations and 
are considered collectively as endangered. The Atlantic Sturgeon is also State-listed as 
endangered in both Delaware and New Jersey (Table 2-12). Atlantic Sturgeon share many life 
history characteristics with the Shortnose Sturgeon in that adults migrate to freshwater to spawn 
and feed on benthic invertebrates such as worms, crustaceans, and aquatic insects 
(Gilbert 1989-TN2149). Unlike Shortnose Sturgeon, adult Atlantic Sturgeon prefer more marine 
habitats and make extensive migrations away from natal estuaries beginning as subadults 
(Gilbert 1989-TN2149). Historically, the Delaware River supported the largest population of 
Atlantic Sturgeon along the Atlantic coast (Secor and Waldman 1999-TN2207). Tagging studies 
in 2005 and 2006 indicated that Atlantic Sturgeon followed similar migration patterns as 
Shortnose Sturgeon with spawning potentially occurring mid-to-late June in the upper tidal 
Delaware reaches between Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Trenton, New Jersey (Simpson and 
Fox 2007-TN2194). Gill net surveys by the Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife collected over 
1,700 juveniles near Artificial Island and the Cherry Island Flats (slightly upstream) between 
1991 and 1998 (ASSRT 2007-TN2082). A single Atlantic Sturgeon was collected in 2004 and 
2009 in bottom trawl sampling in Delaware River Estuary waters between RKM 100 and RKM 
120 (RM 62.1 and RM 74.6), which is north of the PSEG Site (PSEG 2005-TN2566; 2010- 
TN2570). An additional single Atlantic Sturgeon was collected in bottom trawl surveys in 2006 
near the mouth of the Delaware River Estuary (PSEG 2007-TN2568). Atlantic Sturgeon were 
not reported at the SGS intake screens until after this species was Federally listed as 
endangered. Between 2012 and May 31, 2015, 24 live and 15 dead Atlantic Sturgeon were 
reported at the SGS intake system and no impingements were reported at HCGS (PSEG 2012- 
TN3142; PSEG 2012-TN3143; PSEG 2013-TN2693; PSEG 2013-TN2694; PSEG 2013- 
TN2696; PSEG 2013-TN2697; PSEG 2013-TN2698; PSEG 2013-TN2699; PSEG 2013- 
TN2700; PSEG 2013-TN2701; PSEG 2013-TN2702; PSEG 2013-TN2703; PSEG 2013- 
TN2705; PSEG 2013-TN3138; PSEG 2013-TN3139; PSEG 2013-TN3140; PSEG 2013- 
TN3141; PSEG 2013-TN3198; PSEG 2014-TN4240; PSEG 2014-TN4241; PSEG 2014- 
TN4242; PSEG 2014-TN4243; PSEG 2014-TN4244; PSEG 2014-TN4245; PSEG 2014- 
TN4247; PSEG 2014-TN4248; PSEG 2014-TN4249; PSEG 2014-TN4250; PSEG 2014- 
TN4251; PSEG 2015-TN4258; PSEG 2015-TN4261). Further discussion of the potential 
impacts of a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site is provided in Appendix F under the BA 
for NMFS. 


NUREG-2168 


2-116 


November 2015 







Affected Environment 


State-Listed Species 

Three New Jersey threatened freshwater mussel species—the tidewater mucket ( Leptodea 
ochracea ), triangle floater ( Aiasmidonta undulata), and eastern pondmussel ( Ligumia nasuta )— 
are listed as occurring in Salem County, New Jersey (NatureServe 2012-TN2182; 

NatureServe 2012-TN2183; and NatureServe 2012-TN2184, respectively). As these are 
freshwater species, they are unlikely to occur in the brackish marsh creeks that would be 
crossed by the proposed causeway. In addition, there is no documented occurrence of these 
unionid mussels in the vicinity of the PSEG Site (NJDEP 2013-TN3578). Therefore, these 
species will not be discussed further. 

Essential Fish Habitat 

The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
(16 USC 1801 et seq. -TN1061) identified the importance of habitat protection to healthy 
fisheries. The amendments, known as the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 
104-297, 16 USC 1801 et seq. -TN1060), strengthened the authority of governing agencies to 
protect and conserve the habitat of marine, estuarine, and anadromous animals. Essential fish 
habitat (EFH) is defined as the waters and substrate necessary for spawning, breeding, feeding, 
or growth to maturity. Identifying EFH is an essential component in the development of fishery 
management plans to evaluate the effects of habitat loss or degradation on fishery stocks and 
take actions to mitigate such damage. 

NMFS considers the estuarine portion of the Delaware River Estuary and tidal waters near the 
PSEG Site to be EFH for 15 species (PNNL 2013-TN2687). Appendix F contains the EFH 
assessment (dated June 2014) and a supplemental EFH assessment (dated August 2015) that 
consider new building and operation activities associated with a new nuclear power plant at the 
PSEG Site. 

2.4.2 A A qua tic Monitoring 

Extensive biological monitoring data exist to characterize the fish and macroinvertebrate 
communities in the Delaware River Estuary near the PSEG Site. Ecological studies near 
Artificial Island have been performed since the late 1960s to characterize the aquatic 
communities. In compliance with the New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
permit for SGS, ongoing annual ecological monitoring studies include impingement and 
entrainment sampling at the SGS circulating water intake structure; fish monitoring in the 
Delaware River Estuary and marsh creeks with trawls, seines, and weirs; and monitoring offish 
ladders in Delaware River Estuary tributaries (NRC 2011-TN3131). More recent surveys of the 
benthic macroinvertebrates and fish inhabiting the desilt basins and the smaller marsh creeks 
on or near the PSEG Site were performed from winter 2009 through winter 2010 (PSEG 2013- 
TN2586) to characterize the potential area of immediate impact for building a new nuclear 
power plant at the PSEG Site. 

2.5 Socioeconomics 

This section describes socioeconomic resources that could be affected by building, operating, 
and decommissioning a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site. It is organized into two 


November 2015 


2-117 


NUREG-2168 







Affected Environment 


major subsections providing details on demographics and community characteristics. These 
subsections include discussions on spatial (e.g., regional, vicinity, and site) and temporal (e.g., 
10-year increments of population growth) considerations, where appropriate. 

The review team’s baseline discussion focuses on the 50-mi region surrounding the PSEG Site. 
The review team particularly focuses on the area where the majority of operational employees 
of a new plant would reside. The review team assumes this area would coincide with the area 
where employees of the SGS and HCGS reside. Approximately 1,300 people are employed at 
SGS and HCGS. Approximately 82.6 percent of these employees live in four counties in two 
states. These counties are Salem County (41.0 percent), Gloucester County (14.6 percent), 
and Cumberland County (10.0 percent) in New Jersey and New Castle County (17.0 percent) in 
Delaware (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The review team expects the construction and operations 
workers for a new nuclear power plant would likely settle in these same areas. The remaining 

17.4 percent of the workers would be scattered across neighboring counties and cities and 
would not have a discernible impact. 

Based on experience with construction of SGS and HCGS, PSEG believes approximately 

84.5 percent of the workforce required to build a new nuclear power plant would come from within 
the 50-mi region surrounding the proposed site. PSEG assumes the remaining 15.5 percent of 
workers would relocate to the region from outside and would choose to reside in the same four 
counties that house the majority of the operations workers (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Thus, both 
adverse and beneficial socioeconomic impacts of building and operating a new plant would not be 
noticeable except in these four counties. After reviewing the PSEG ER and other information 
provided by the applicant, and based on the results of the review team’s independent analysis, the 
staff s socioeconomic analysis focuses on Salem, Gloucester and Cumberland Counties in New 
Jersey and New Castle County in Delaware. This area is known as the economic impact area. 

2.5.1 Demographics 

This section describes the population of the PSEG economic impact area, focusing first on 
residents who live in the area permanently, then on transients who may temporarily live in or 
visit the area, and finally on migrant workers who travel into the area to work and then leave 
after their jobs are done. 

The review team evaluated the demographic characteristics of resident populations, transient 
populations, and migrant workers within the 50-mi region of the PSEG Site. Because the focus 
of the review team’s analysis is on the economic impact area, the data presented focuses on 
Salem, Gloucester, and Cumberland Counties in New Jersey and New Castle County in 
Delaware. For definitional purposes, “residents” live permanently in the area, while “transients” 
may temporarily live in the area but have permanent residences elsewhere, and “migrant 
workers” are employed seasonally in the area. “Transients” are not defined by the U.S. Census, 
which generally only captures individuals residing in the area during the time of the census. 

The data used in this section were derived by the review team from the 2000 and 2010 
censuses; other estimates are from the U.S. Census Bureau (USCB), including the 2008, 2011, 
and 2012 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Summary Files; and the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture's 2007 Census of Agriculture. Census data and ACS estimates were used to 


NUREG-2168 


2-118 


November 2015 


Affected Environment 


make comparisons across the region (by sector), among counties, and with the states of 
Delaware and New Jersey. Data regarding transient populations were drawn from evacuation 
time estimates prepared for PSEG in 2009 by KLD Engineering (KLD 2009-TN2734). 

The review team relied on population projections prepared by the Delaware Population 
Consortium and the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development. 

2. 5.7.7 Resident Population 

As shown in Table 2-13, the combined population of the four counties in the economic impact 
area was 1,045,640 in 2011. More than half of this population (51.31 percent) lives in New 
Castle County; 6.31 percent reside in Salem County, the host county of the PSEG Site; 

14.93 percent live in Cumberland County; and 27.45 percent live in Gloucester County 
(USCB 2002-TN2297; USCB 2009-TN2344; USCB 2012-TN2743). Table 2-14 lists the 
population of municipalities and townships within 10 mi of the site. The largest population 
centers are Middletown, Delaware (17,608 residents) and Pennsville Township, New Jersey 
(13,405 residents). Salem, New Jersey, located about 8 mi north of the site, has 5,239 
residents (USCB 2012-TN2743). 

Table 2-13. Recent Population and Growth Rates of Counties in the Economic Impact Area 



2000 

2008 

2011 

Annual Growth 
Rate, 2008-2011 

(%) 

Salem County, New Jersey 

64,285 

66,141 

65,984 

-0.08 

Cumberland County, New Jersey 

146,438 

156,830 

156,142 

-0.15 

Gloucester County, New Jersey 

254,673 

287,860 

287,036 

-0.10 

New Castle County, Delaware 

500,265 

529,641 

536,478 

0.43 

Total Economic Impact Area 

965,661 

1,040,472 

1,045,640 

0.17 


Sources: USCB 2002-TN2297; USCB 2009-TN2344: USCB 2012-TN2743. 


Table 2-14. Population of Counties, Townships and Municipalities Within 10 mi of PSEG 


Township/Municipality 

Population, 2011 

Salem County, New Jersey 

65,984 

Lower Alloways Creek Township 

1,859 

Quinton Township 

2,676 

Elsinboro Township 

1,111 

Salem 

5,239 

Mannington Township 

1,632 

Pennsville Township 

13,405 

Cumberland County, New Jersey 

156,142 

Stow Creek Township 

1,458 

Greenwich Township 

878 

New Castle County, Delaware 

536,478 

Odessa 

296 

Townsend 

1,950 

Middletown 

17,608 

Delaware City 

1,822 

Source: USCB 2012-TN2743. 


November 2015 


2-119 


NUREG-2168 














Affected Environment 


Table 2-13 indicates the population of the economic impact area increased at a rate of 
0.97 percent per year between 2000 and 2008, with average annual growth ranging from 
0.36 percent in Salem County to 1.63 percent in Gloucester County. Between 2008 and 2011, 
population growth in the economic impact area slowed to a rate of 0.17 percent per year, with 
New Castle County adding residents, while the three New Jersey counties experienced 
population declines (USCB 2002-TN2297; USCB 2009-TN2344; USCB 2012-TN2743). 

Table 2-15 presents longer-term population trends and projections for counties in the economic 
impact area. The U.S. Census projects the population of the overall area will continue growing, 
although at a slower rate than in recent decades. New Jersey forecasts Gloucester County will 
grow at the highest rate, with the lowest rate of growth predicted for Salem County. According 
to Delaware’s projections, New Castle County will continue to account for slightly more than half 
of the population of the economic impact area (USCB 2002-TN3474; DPC 2013-TN2317; 
NJLWD 2012-TN3096). 

Table 2-16 provides the age and gender distribution of the resident population within the four 
counties of the economic impact area. Women account for more than half of the population in 
all the counties except Cumberland. Delaware is 51.5 percent female and New Jersey is 
51.3 percent female. Cumberland County has the youngest population in the economic impact 
area with a median age of 36.7 years, and Salem County has the oldest with a median age of 
40.8 years. Delaware’s average age is 38.6 years, and New Jersey’s average age is 38.7 years 
(USCB 2011-TN2424). 

In 2012 in New Castle County, 10.7 percent of the population has income below the poverty 
level, slightly lower than the 11.2 percent for residents of the State of Delaware. In the New 
Jersey portion of the economic impact area, Gloucester County has a significantly lower portion 
of residents below the poverty level (7.7 percent) than the statewide average (9.4 percent), 
while Cumberland and Salem County have greater percentages of the population below the 
poverty level (16.1 percent and 11.2 percent, respectively) than the state average (USCB 2012- 
TN3095). The median household income was $71,133 for Delaware and $71,180 for New 
Jersey. Table 2-17 provides household income data. 

Table 2-18 provides the racial and ethnic distribution of residents within the economic impact 
area. African-American residents make up 20 percent of the population within the economic 
impact area, ranging from 11.1 percent of the population of Gloucester County to 24.8 percent 
of the population of New Castle County. Hispanic residents represent less than 10 percent 
of the population of the four-county economic impact area. Gloucester County has the 
lowest proportion of Hispanic residents (4.6 percent), and Cumberland County the highest 
(26.2 percent). The population of Cumberland County also includes 10.2 percent who 
self-identified as “some other race,” much higher than the 3.3 percent average for the economic 
impact area as a whole. White residents are the most prominent race in all four counties, 
composing more than two-thirds of the population in each (USCB 2002-TN3474). 


NUREG-2168 


2-120 


November 2015 





Affected Environment 


>N 


0 

(/) 

k_ 

0 

—) 



o 

o 

CM 

CO 

< 

1 

< 

1 

< 

| 

< 

1 

1 

I 




2040 

in 

n- 

hv." 

o 

CM 

h- 

00 

o’ 

00 

CO 

z 

1 

z 

1 

Z 

i 

z 

1 

1 

1 



£ 



CD 
















d> 





T— 














z 



















-n 



CO 

CM 

h- 

T— 

O 

00 

o 

CM 

o 

in 

o 


CM 

co 



w 

c 



00 

m 

N" 

CO 

CD_ 

CD 

O 

CM 


o 

CD 

N- 

o 

N" 

CM 

o 


O 

N - 

CD 



ro 


o 





*« 






■» 







ro 

o 

in 


X— 


CO 


cm" 


05" 


00 


05" 




0 


05 


M" 


h- 


CO 


CD 


M" 


05 




L_ 

ro 


CM 

in 


O 


,_ 


CO 




CD. 






$ 





T— 








oo" 


T— 




_ro 



















0 



















Q 



05 

T— 

CD 

T— 

o 

CO 

o 

CD 

O 

in 

O 

X— 

O 

co 



<4- 

o 


O 

r- 

in 

CD 

O 

00 

05 

o 

CM 

in 

o 

CO 

1^ 

O 

h- 

CM 

O 

05 

in 

o 

in 

CD 



(/) 

0) 

+4 


CM 

X— 


X— 


in" 


o" 


r^-" 


x — 


x — 





O 



CO 


CD 


X — 


CD 


M" 


CM 





CM 

in 


05 


■*- 


CO 




CM 


X— 




ro 













05" 


X—" 




4-> 


















CO 



















0 



















-C 



















4-4 



05 

CD 

CD 

00 

CO 

T— 

00 

CM 

co 

00 

N - 

in 

00 

N- 



"D 

C 


O 



r-~ 

h- 

n- 

05 

CD 


00 

CN 

CO 

00 

o 

CM 

05 

00 


M" 

r^- 

00 



TO 


o 

oo" 


05" 


cd" 


oo" 


cd" 


X— 


05 " 




ro 


CM 

CO 


05 


in 


00 


CD 


05 


n- 






in 


00 


X— 


CM 






0 




0 











»- 


•* 




k_ 













CO 


x— 




< 



















4-> 



















o 

ro 

a 

E 



m 

CM 

O 

CD 

00 

T — 

CO 

r- 

in 

in 

o 

05 

X— 

CO 




O 

o 

CD 

CM 

C0 

o 

CD_ 

1^ 

CO 

CD 

CD 

o 

co 

CM 

■ 

in 

co 

00 

CD 

CD 

0 




o 

O 


co" 


cd" 


N- 






in" 






CM 

o 


00 


N" 


in 


CD 


T - 


CD 




o 



in 


h- 


T— 


CM 






05 




E 

o 

c 

o 













oo’ 








CD 

o 

00 

X— 

CO 

05 

CM 

X— 

M" 

o 

00 

O 

in 

0 



a 

LU 


o 

o 

05 


CD 

c\i 

in 

o 

CO 

CO 

o 

in 

05 

CM 

*- 

00 

in 

r- 

co 

0 




a> 

x— 


cd" 


co" 


o" 


in" 


o" 


in" 




0 


t* 

^r 


CD 


CO 


CO 


CD 


CO 


h- 







-o- 


CD 


X- 


CM 




I''- 


00 




4-> 













h-" 






c 



















V) 



















c 

o 

*44 



in 

CM 

00 


o 

m 

r^. 

00 

CD 

CM 

X- 


•m- 

in 




o 

00 


CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CD 

CD 

05 

05 

in 

N- 

CD 

1^ 

o 

CM 

h- 

in 

r- 



ro 


05 

co’ 


■^T 


cm" 


05" 


M" 


in" 


in" 



CO 

3 



05 


05 


CO 


05 


CD 


co 


05 



05 

a 



CO 


in 


■*- 






co 


h- 



O 

CO 

o 













t''-" 





z 

a. 


















1- 

"O 


















CM 

0 



CD 


N" 




x— 


CD 


CM 





O 

4-> 


o 

in 


o 




00 




x— 


m 



CM 

CJ 

0 


w 

1^- 

CD 




CO 


CD_ 


CO 


T_ . 


CM_ 



Q 



05 

in 


oo" 


X— 


cm" 


o" 


x— 


0 " 




o' 


T“ 

00 




CM 


h- 


CD 


h- 


N" 



a. 



CO 


m 


T— 


T— 




N-" 


r^- 



_J 

D 

Z 

*o 

c 


















M - 

1^- 

ro 


















M" 

o 

















CO 

"ro 















ro 



Z 

o 

o 














0 



1- 

iZ 

O 

CM 

1 

o 


>* 




>> 

c 


>* 






< 


0 

CM 

O 

O 

</) 

X 

h- 

05 


c 

3 

o 

O 

0 

05 


0 

cn 

3 

o 

O 

T3 

0 

05 

c 

3 

O 

O 

0 

05 

>• 

c 

0 

O) 

>x 

0 

O) 

0 

ro 

a. 

E 

0 

05 

JO 

ro 

0 

"o. 

O 

CM 

CO 

O 

C/5 

in 



_0 

C 

ro 

0 

k_ 

c 

ro 

C 

_ro 

c 

ro 

0 

c 

ro 

o 

o 

C 

ro 

0 

C/5 

c 

ro 

a 

c 

ro 

L-i- 

< 

Z> 




C/5 

0 

o 

_c 

_c 


-C 

"oo 

-C 

O -C 

L_ 

_c 

F 

-C 

0 

(/j 

0 

O 

CM 



O 

ro 

£ 

O 

0 O 

0 o 

o _ 

E 

O 

0 
~) 

O 

0 

/— 

O 

0 

Z 

_0 



$ 


ro 

>o 

E 


3 

5^ 

0 

5? 


55 

L_ 

O 


II 

k_ 

3 

n 



0 


0 


3 




ro 


0 


0 


< 

O 

ro 



z 


a 


o 


o 


cn 


z 


LU 


z 

(/) 

1- 




















November 2015 


2-121 


NUREG-2168 






Affected Environment 


Table 2-16. Percentage Age and Gender Distribution in the Economic Impact Area 



New Castle 

Cumberland 

Gloucester 



County 

County 

County 

Salem County 

Total Population 

536,478 

156,142 

287,036 

65,984 

Male Population 

260,004 

80,224 

139,322 

32,077 

Under 10 yr (%) 

13.3 

13.1 

13.7 

13.3 

10 to 19 yr (%) 

14.8 

13.6 

15.2 

14.5 

20 to 29 yr (%) 

14.8 

14.8 

12.8 

11.6 

30 to 39 yr (%) 

13.4 

16.0 

12.3 

11.8 

40 to 49 yr (%) 

14.8 

15.2 

16.2 

14.7 

50 to 59 yr (%) 

13.3 

12.6 

14.1 

14.7 

60 to 69 yr (%) 

8.5 

7.8 

9.1 

10.7 

70 to 79 yr (%) 

4.4 

4.3 

4.2 

5.6 

80 to 84 yr (%) 

1.5 

1.4 

1.6 

1.6 

85 yr and older (%) 

1.2 

1.1 

0.9 

1.4 

Female Population 

276,474 

75,918 

147,714 

33,907 

Under 10 yr (%) 

12.3 

13.8 

12.1 

10.6 

10 to 19 yr (%) 

13.2 

13.4 

13.9 

14.3 

20 to 29 yr (%) 

14.0 

12.9 

11.8 

10.7 

30 to 39 yr (%) 

12.9 

12.4 

13.1 

10.9 

40 to 49 yr (%) 

14.9 

14.1 

15.8 

16.0 

50 to 59 yr (%) 

13.7 

12.7 

14.2 

15.0 

60 to 69 yr (%) 

9.2 

9.8 

9.0 

10.1 

70 to 79 yr (%) 

5.5 

6.2 

5.8 

6.7 

80 to 84 yr (%) 

2.1 

2.2 

2.3 

3.1 

85 yr and older (%) 

2.1 

2.6 

2.0 

2.5 

Median Age (years) 

37.0 

36.7 

38.5 

40.8 

Source: USCB 2002-TN3474. 

Table 2-17. Household Income Distribution (Percent of Households) Within the 

Economic Impact Area in 2011 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars 



New Castle 

Cumberland 

Gloucester 


Income Range 

County 

County 

County 

Salem County 

Total Households 

202,188 

49,716 

103,725 

25,656 

Less than $10,000 

5.4 

5.8 

3.2 

6.9 

$10,000 to $14,999 

4.1 

4.8 

3.2 

4.5 

$15,000 to $24,999 

8.0 

11.8 

8.0 

12.4 

$25,000 to $34,999 

9.0 

11.2 

8.4 

7.3 

$35,000 to $49,999 

13.0 

14.8 

11.1 

15.0 

$50,000 to $74,999 

17.9 

18.4 

17.4 

18.2 

$75,000 to $99,999 

13.8 

15.8 

15.0 

13.5 

$100,000 to $149,999 

16.4 

12.4 

18.9 

16.1 

$150,000 to $199,999 

6.5 

2.9 

9.7 

3.7 

$200,000 or more 

5.8 

2.0 

5.2 

2.5 

Median Household Income 

$63,716 

$51,548 

$71,850 

$53,926 


Source: USCB 2012-TN2743. 


NUREG-2168 


2-122 


November 2015 










Affected Environment 


Table 2-18. Racial and Ethnic Distribution Within the Economic Impact Area 


Racial or Ethnic Category 

New 

Castle 

County 

Cumberland 

County 

Gloucester 

County 

Salem 

County 

Economic 

Impact 

Area 

Total population 

536,478 

156,142 

287,036 

65,984 

1,045,640 

White 

373,858 

105,573 

244,953 

54,221 

778,605 

Black or African-American 

132,891 

34,352 

31,974 

10,209 

209,426 

American Indian and Alaska Native 

3,984 

3,223 

1,996 

611 

9,814 

Asian 

25,657 

2,447 

9,048 

724 

37,876 

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific 
Islander 

716 

60 

153 

20 

949 

Some other race 

11,272 

15,944 

5,841 

1,417 

34,474 

Two or more races 

10,929 

5,141 

6,509 

1,197 

23,776 

Hispanic or Latino 

45,186 

40,892 

13,165 

4,295 

103,538 

Not Hispanic or Latino 

491,292 

115,250 

273,871 

61,689 

942,102 


Source: USCB 2012-TN2743. 


2.5.1.2 Transient Population 

Transient populations include people from outside the area who work in or visit large 
workplaces, schools, hospitals and nursing homes, correctional facilities, hotels and motels, 
recreational areas, or special events in the area. A study published in 2009 included surveys to 
estimate the 2008 transient population within 10 mi of the PSEG Site (KLD 2009-TN2734). 
Table 2-19 summarizes the study’s findings. Based on the surveys, the transient population 
within 10 mi is estimated to be 12,085, with 66 percent of this population occurring in Delaware 
and 34 percent in New Jersey. Almost all of this population occurs 5 to 10 mi from the PSEG 
Site and includes primarily school students (34 percent), employees (other than those at SGS 
and HCGS) (34 percent), tourists and recreationists (26 percent), and people undergoing 
medical care (5 percent). The study did not determine where these transient populations 
originated, and some of them may reside within the 10-mi area. 

Table 2-19. Estimates of the Transient and Migrant Worker Populations in the Economic 
Impact Area 


Category 

Percent of Total 

Transient Population (12,085 people) 


Students 

34 

Employees (non HCGS/SGS) 

34 

Tourists/recreationists 

26 

Medical patients 

5 

Migrant Workers (up to 5,570 people) 


Outage workers at HCGS/SGS 

24 

Agricultural workers 

76 

Source: KLD 2009-TN2734. 


November 2015 


2-123 


NUREG-2168 











Affected Environment 


2.5.1.3 Migrant Labor 

The USCB defines a migrant laborer as someone who works seasonally or temporarily and 
moves one or more times per year to perform seasonal or temporary work. Migrant labor in the 
economic impact area consists mainly of refueling outage workers at SGS and HCGS and 
migrant farm laborers. Table 2-19 presents data on transient and migrant workers in the 
economic impact area. 

Scheduled outages to carry out fuel reloading, equipment maintenance, and other projects 
occur every 18 months for each of the three units at SGS and HCGS. For the combined 
sites, this results in one outage every 6 months (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Between 1,034 and 
1,361 additional workers were employed during the most recent outages (PSEG 2012- 
TN3099). Because each outage lasts for approximately three weeks, it is unlikely the workers 
would be accompanied by their families. If 1,361 workers migrate into the economic impact 
area during an outage, the population of the economic impact area would increase by about 
one-tenth of one percent. For bounding purposes, if all of the workers stayed in the economic 
impact area county with the smallest population (Salem County) during the outage, the 
county’s population would increase by 2.1 percent. 

The agricultural sector can be another source of migrant workers due to seasonal fluctuations in 
labor requirements. The 2007 Census of Agriculture indicates 164 farms in the economic 
impact area employ migrant labor, but the Census of Agriculture does not directly count the 
number of migrant workers. Assuming the upper bound (i.e., that all 2,471 outage workers 
from outside the region of interest are migrant workers), the population of migrant agricultural 
workers is negligible compared to the resident population of the economic impact area. Even 
if each of these workers in-migrated with two additional family members (resulting in a total of 
7,413 people), the 2011 population of the economic impact area would increase only by less 
than one quarter of one percent (PSEG 2012-TN3099; USDA 2007-TN3112). 

2.5.2 Community Characteristics 

This section characterizes the communities that could be affected by building and operating a 
new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site. The following subsections describe the 
socioeconomic conditions in the area, including the economy, tax-based revenue, 
transportation, aesthetics and recreation, housing, and public services. 

2.5.2.1 Economy 

The review team expects the majority of direct impacts from building and operating a new plant 
would occur in Salem County, where the PSEG Site is located. Unemployment data presented 
in this section suggest the economy of the economic impact area grew from 2002 through 2007, 
experienced a downturn between 2008 and 2010, and recovered modestly in 2011. The 
economy of each county is described below. 

This section presents information on the labor force, employment, and income within the 
economic impact area. Because of the significant national economic changes that have 
occurred in recent years, some key data are presented for a 10-year period to illustrate the 
disruptions experienced in the economic impact area and its steps toward recovery. 


NUREG-2168 


2-124 


November 2015 



Affected Environment 


Table 2-20 lists the labor force size, number of employed and unemployed persons, and the 
unemployment rate for 2011 for each county in the economic impact area and for the states of 
New Jersey and Delaware. Table 2-21 chronicles the change in the unemployment rates for 
each area for the 10-year period between 2002 and 2011. 


Table 2-20. 2011 Annual Average Labor Force, Employment, and Unemployment in 

Counties of the Impact Area and in the States of New Jersey and Delaware 



Civilian 
Labor Force 

Employed 

Unemployed 

Unemployment 

Rate 

New Jersey 

4,545,181 

4,120,017 

425,164 

9.4 

Cumberland County 

70,761 

61,294 

9,467 

13.4 

Gloucester County 

157,955 

142,463 

15,492 

9.8 

Salem County 

31,654 

28,249 

3,405 

10.8 

Delaware 

440,523 

407,772 

32,751 

7.4 

New Castle County 

271,024 

251,111 

19,913 

7.3 

Economic Impact Area 

531,394 

483,117 

48,277 

9.08 

Sources: BLS 2013-TN2394; BLS 2013-TN2342. 


Table 2-21. Annual Unemployment Rates (percent) for Counties of the Economic Impact 
Area and the States of New Jersey and Delaware, 2002 to 2011 



2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

New Jersey 

5.8 

5.9 

4.9 

4.5 

4.6 

4.3 

5.5 

9.0 

9.6 

9.3 

Cumberland 

7.6 

7.9 

6.6 

6.4 

6.9 

6.6 

8.1 

12.4 

13.6 

13.4 

Gloucester 

5.2 

5.4 

4.7 

4.4 

4.7 

4.3 

5.4 

9.2 

10.2 

9.8 

Salem 

5.8 

6.0 

5.2 

4.8 

5.0 

5.0 

6.3 

10.5 

11.5 

10.8 

Delaware 

4.0 

4.2 

3.9 

4.0 

3.5 

3.5 

4.8 

7.9 

8.0 

7.3 

New Castle 

4.1 

4.3 

4.1 

4.2 

3.7 

3.6 

4.8 

7.9 

8.1 

7.3 


Sources: BLS 2013-TN2394; BLS 2013-TN2342. 


The data in Table 2-20 show that New Castle County, Delaware is the largest employment 
center of the economic impact area, accounting for more than half the labor force and employed 
persons in the area in 2011. The county also has the lowest unemployment rate in the 
economic impact area. Within the New Jersey portion of the economic impact area, Gloucester 
County is the largest employment center and has the lowest rate of unemployment. The 
unemployment rate of New Castle County matches that of Delaware, while the unemployment 
rates of the New Jersey counties exceed that of the state as a whole (BLS 2013-TN2342). 

Table 2-21 indicates that all counties in the economic impact area experienced gradually 
declining rates of unemployment from 2002 through 2007. By 2010, however, unemployment 
rates increased significantly in all the counties, ranging from increases of 4.5 percentage points 
for New Castle County to 7.0 percentage points for Cumberland County. During 2011, 
unemployment rates again declined slightly in all the counties (BLS 2013-TN2394; BLS 2013- 
TN2342). 


November 2015 


2-125 


NUREG-2168 













Affected Environment 


Table 2-22 presents data on total employment by industry type in the economic impact area in 
2012. In Salem County, the host county for the PSEG Site, the top four employment sectors 
include educational services (22.8 percent of the workforce), manufacturing (12.3 percent), retail 
trade (10.4 percent), and professional and scientific services (9.3 percent). The three remaining 
counties in the economic impact area exhibit similar patterns, although the rank ordering may 
change slightly (USCB 2013-TN3113). 

Table 2-23 shows the residential locations of operations workers at SGS and HCGS in 2008. 
According to these data, 41 percent of the workforce resides in Salem County, and 
82.6 percent resides in the economic impact area (including Salem County). Nearly 
97 percent of the workforce resides in the economic impact area plus five additional 
counties (Burlington and Camden Counties, New Jersey; Chester and Delaware Counties, 
Pennsylvania; and Cecil County, Maryland). Only 1.1 percent of the operations workers 
reside more than 50 mi from SGS and HCGS (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The review team 
expects operations workers for a new plant would follow a similar residential pattern. 

The three reactors at HCGS and SGS are each shut down for refueling every 18 months, 
resulting in an outage of one reactor every 6 months at the site. At these times workers come 
into the area to refuel the reactors and perform equipment maintenance and other projects. 
PSEG employment records indicate that between 1,034 and 1,361 workers were involved in 
each of the most recent three outages (one for each reactor) (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Table 2-24 
summarizes the permanent residential locations of workers participating in the largest of these 
outages. The data indicate that on average, about 29 percent of the outage workers employed 
at HCGS and SGS live in the economic impact area, and more than half live within the 50-mi 
region surrounding the PSEG Site (PSEG 2012-TN3099). The percentage of workers coming 
from outside the 50-mi region is higher for outage workers than for the workers expected to be 
involved in building a new plant at the PSEG Site because outage work requires a higher 
percentage of specialty workers who may come from other parts of the country, while building a 
new plant would involve a higher percentage of general construction workers who are more 
likely to be available within the region. 

Table 2-25 presents per capita income data for the counties of the economic impact area and 
the states of New Jersey and Delaware for the period 2002 to 2011. The data indicate income 
levels are higher in New Castle and Gloucester Counties, which have larger populations and 
labor forces than Cumberland and Salem Counties. The per capita income of New Castle 
County is higher than that of the State of Delaware, while the income levels of the New Jersey 
counties within the economic impact area are lower than for the State of New Jersey 
(USDC 2013-TN3114). 

Table 2-25 also shows per capita incomes grew steadily in all counties of the economic impact 
area from 2003 through 2008 before falling for most counties in 2009. Growth resumed in 2010 
and continued through 2012 (USDC 2013-TN3114). 


NUREG-2168 


2-126 


November 2015 








Affected Environment 


CM 

O 

CN 

TO 

a) 


a 

ro 

a 

E 


E 

o 

c 

o 

u 

LU 

05 

JZ 


a > 
a 
>» 


CO 

3 

■O 

JD 
•—> 
c 
a ) 

E 

>» 

o 

a 

E 

LU 

"ro 


CM 

CM 

■ 

CM 

_05 

Si 

ro 


UJ 

Q 

of 

*-> 

CO 

ro 

<J 

a> 


E 

05 

re 

C/5 


d) 

+■> 

CO 

0) 

a 

3 

O 

O 


■O 

c 

_TO 

k_ 

a 

.Q 

E 

3 


C 

0) 

o 

o 

CL 


t/5 

0) 

o 

>« 

o 

a 

E 

LU 


£ 

0) 

a 

0) 

CL 


i/5 

0) 

o 

> 

o 

a 

E 

LU 


o 

d 


CO 


00 

CO 


LO 

T— 

I s - 

I s - 

•^ s 

CO 

co 

co 

CO 


LO 

t— 

CM 

T— 

T“ 

CD 

T— 

I s - 

xr 

T— 

00 


CM 

CO 

CO 

O 



CO 

CM 

■>— 

o 

I s - 

co 

CO 

T—' 


io' 

co' 

co’ 

04 

co’ 

CO’ 

05’ 

^r 

T— * 

o’ 

CM 


■*- 

CM 


CM 



CO 

CM 

co 

CM 

T— 


o 

o 


LO 

I s - 

CO 

co 

CD 


LO (D s n to N o to 

d id d c\i o c\ic\i 


O 05 CO O' CO o co CM 

co lo cm co t- in t— r- 


■o 

c 

CD 

05 

C 

C/5 


>- 05 

.b c 
c/5 c 
05 | 

O 

"O 

a) £ 

i- CD 

3 

— 05 

S-E 

05 § 

< x: O 


c 

o 

o 

3 

i— 

W 

c 

o 


CD 

C S 

3 _g 

O CD 
CD C/5 


CO 

CD 


■o 3 

C TO 
CD C 
CD 


CD 
CD 

k_ 

"O 

c 
CD 

cd" — 
o 
c 
CD 


05 

C 

CO 

CD 


CM 

d 

CM 


I s - 

CM 


CM 

CO 


c 

CD 

o 

o 













d 

CM 


CO 

CO 


CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

00 

05 

co 

i_ 

o 

C\i 

CO 

CM 

CO 

d 

d 

T— 

id 

d 

CM 

id 

d 

05 




t— 


v 





CM 



0. 













C/5 














CD 

co 













05 

CO 

CM 

o 

CM 

r- 

o 

05 

I s - 



CO 



co 

IO 

CO 

CM 

00 

co 


I s - 

co 

CM 

I s - 

CO 

CO 

o 

CO 

CO 

CO 

05 

o_ 

I s - 

CO 

LO 

I s - 

cq 

I s - 

CM 

a 

E 

LU 

of 

CM 


cm’ 

co’ 


co’ 

cm’ 



cm’ 

co’ 



*■> 














c 

o 

o 

’’T 

r-. 

I s - 

O 

r- 

CO 

t— 

LO 

CO 

05 

o 

O 

o 

k_ 

o 

o 

d 

LO 

co 


c\i 

d 

CM 

I s - 

d 

id 

r-’ 


05 











CM 



q. 














C/5 














05 

0 

00 

_ 

co 

o 

CO 

05 


O 

LO 

co 

IO 

o 

CO 




CM 

LO 

05 

CO 

05 

o 

CO 


05 

CO 

T— 

o 

- 

LO 

o 

CM 

LO 

05 

ao 

o 

cq 

05 

LO 

CO 

I s - 

a 



co’ 

cm’ 

io’ 

I s -’ 

co’ 

co’ 

o’ 


co’ 

d 

id 

E 

T— 



■*— 






■«— 

CO 



LU 















I s - 

r— 


TO 

C 

CD CD 


O 


CO 

CD 


c 

o 


3 

C 

CD 


_g 

o 

-C 


CD 

TO 

CD 


TO 

Q5 

cr 


CD 

■c 

o 


05 

c 


CO 
3 

So 

s f 

2 g £ 


TO 

E 

L— 

o 


c 
CD 

w O 

E c 

TO 2 

CD CD 

TO CD 

■ — to 
LL CD 


C 

05 


"O T5 
C C 
U CD CD 

<_T 05 
C > 
05 

E _ 

CO O CO 
CO 05- 
Q5 TO .= 
-- C C 

2 g -6 

CL E to 


CO 

TO 

c 

o 


TO 


CO 

05 

g 

> 

L_ 

CD 

CO 

c 

05 

E 

05 

05 

CD 

C 

CD 

E 


TO 

05 

1 c 

TO to 

co' « 
05 co 
o CO 
> TO 

05 CD 
CO - 5 


2 to 

O -o 

'-3 C 
TO CD 

I 2 

LLI S 


c 

g 

TO 

"O 

o 
E 
E 
o 
o 

o CO 
TO 05 
O 

_ _ > 

«S a3 

E - co 
05 c 
^ O T5 
3 O 

05 CD O 
- 05 ■*- 
£ O -D 

< E 


"O 

c 

TO 

C 
05 

!? 


r- 

co 


CM 

^— 


T— 

CM 

05 

00 

I s - 

CO 

05 

CO 

o 


CO 

CM 

00 

T— 


o 

— 

o 

CO 

CO 

CO 

05 

I s - 

CO 


CM 

'T 

CO 

I s - 

cq 

■'T 

05 

cq 

T—’ 

co’ 

I s -’ 

CN 

I s -’ 

co’ 


cm’ 

•d 

I s -’ 

■d 

cm’ 


d 


TO 


g 

s 

3 

CL 

Q_ 

CD 

O 

X 

05 

co' c 

8.0 

? 2 

8 « 

k_ c 

5 E 

O TO 


November 2015 


2-127 


NUREG-2168 


Public administration 4,654 7.3 7,215 5.1 1,561 5.3 11,714 

Source: USCB 2013-TN3113. 









Affected Environment 


Table 2-23. HCGS and SGS Employee Distribution by State and County as of 2008 


Residence State and County 

Number 
of Employees 

Percent of Total 

(%) 

New Jersey 

1,140 

72.4 

Atlantic 

5 

0.3 

Burlington 

37 

2.4 

Camden 

56 

3.6 

Cape May 

5 

0.3 

Cumberland 

157 

10.0 

Gloucester 

230 

14.6 

Salem 

645 

41.0 

(Other) 

5 

0.3 

Delaware 

269 

17.1 

New Castle 

268 

17.0 

Kent 

1 

0.1 

Pennsylvania 

122 

7.8 

Berks 

4 

0.3 

Bucks 

1 

0.1 

Chester 

56 

3.6 

Delaware 

39 

2.5 

Lancaster 

5 

0.3 

Montgomery 

9 

0.6 

Philadelphia 

2 

0.1 

(Other) 

6 

0.4 

Maryland 

38 

2.4 

Cecil 

33 

2.1 

Howard 

3 

0.2 

(Other) 

2 

0.1 

Other States 

5 

0.3 

Total 

1,574 

100.0 

Total for economic impact area 

1,300 

82.6 

Total of leading nine counties (a) 

1,521 

96.8 

Outside 50-mi radius 

18 

1.1 


(a) Burlington, Camden, Cumberland, Gloucester, and Salem Counties, New Jersey; New Castle 
County, Delaware; Chester and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania; and Cecil County, 
Maryland. 

Source: PSEG 2015-TN4280. 


NUREG-2168 


2-128 


November 2015 







Affected Environment 


Table 2-24. Residential Locations of Outage Workers for the Largest Recent Outage at 
the HCGS/SGS Site 


Location of Permanent Residence 

Number of Outage 
Workers 

Percent of Outage 
Workforce (%) 

Within economic impact area 

388 

28.5 

New Castle County 

55 

4.0 

Cumberland County 

73 

5.4 

Gloucester County 

155 

11.4 

Salem County 

105 

7.7 

Within 50-mi region 

728 

53.5 

Delaware 

63 

4.3 

Maryland 

11 

0.8 

New Jersey 

547 

40.2 

Pennsylvania 

107 

7.9 

Outside 50-mi region 

633 

46.5 

Total 

1,361 

100.0 

Source: PSEG 2012-TN3099. 


Table 2-25. Per Capita Income for Counties of the Impact Area and the States of New 
Jersey and Delaware, 2002 to 2011 



2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

Delaware 

35,516 

37,236 

38,404 

40,350 

41,030 

41,490 

40,841 

41,072 

42,805 

44,224 

New Castle 

39,588 

41,413 

42,654 

45,146 

45,469 

45,904 

44,791 

45,170 

47,435 

49,144 

New Jersey 

41,229 

43,117 

44,785 

48,098 

50,636 

51,831 

50,303 

51,010 

53,333 

54,987 

Cumberland 

27,200 

27,962 

28,683 

29,974 

31,159 

32,735 

33,429 

34,589 

35,560 

36,551 

Gloucester 

32,340 

34,143 

35,694 

37,630 

39,052 

40,898 

41,072 

41,663 

43,658 

44,868 

Salem 

31,405 

33,302 

33,824 

35,507 

37,158 

39,254 

39,138 

39,889 

41,192 

42,350 

Source: USDC 2013-TN3114. 


2.5.2.2 Taxes 

Table 2-26 summarizes state and local tax rates relevant to the PSEG Site. Because the plant 
would be located entirely within the State of New Jersey, PSEG would be obligated to pay New 
Jersey an annual energy receipts tax of 9 percent of the new plant’s total net income. In 
addition, the plant would be subject to annual property taxes at rates established for Salem 
County, currently $1.207 for each $100 of assessed value (NRC 2013-TN3116). 


November 2015 


2-129 


NUREG-2168 











Affected Environment 


Table 2-26. Tax Rates for Counties in Economic Impact Area and States 



Tax Rates 

Energy 

Property 


Location 

Receipts 

(%) 

Income 

($) 

County 

(%) 

Local 

(%) 

Sales 

(%) 

Delaware 

NA 

$0-$2,943.50 + 
6.75% of income 

— 

— 

— 



> $60,000 




New Castle County 

— 

— 

0.7006 

1.8236-3.9901 

— 

New Jersey 

9.0 

1.4-8.97 

— 


7 

Cumberland County 

— 

— 

— 

1.733-5.503 

— 

Gloucester County 

— 

— 

— 

2.232-6.626 

— 

Salem County 

— 

— 

0.01207 


— 

Lower Alloways 
Creek Township 

— 

— 

— 


— 

Salem City 

— 

— 

— 

3.688 

— 

Pennsylvania 

NA 

3.07 



6 

Philadelphia County 

— 

— 

— 

— 

2 

NA = Not Applicable. 


Sources: DEDO 2012-TN3121; DEDO 2012-TN2390; NJ Treasury 2010-TN2337; NJ Treasury 2010-TN2338; 
NJ Treasury 2010-TN2340; NJ Treasury 2013-TN2341; PDOR 2013-TN2331. 


Sales Taxes 

PSEG also would pay sales taxes on purchases of materials and services. As shown in 
Table 2-26, applicable sales tax rates are 7 percent in New Jersey and 6 percent in 
Pennsylvania, with purchases within Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, assessed an additional 
2 percent tax. Delaware does not have a sales tax. Table 2-27 summarizes the operation- 
related payroll and total purchases in support of operations at HCGS and SGS between 2005 
and 2008 in each of the relevant jurisdictions (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The review team expects 
purchases associated with a new plant at the PSEG Site would be distributed similarly. Thus, 
the review team expects approximately 65.0 percent of the materials and services purchases for 
a new plant would be subject to New Jersey sales tax. About 31.1 percent of materials and 
services purchases would be subject to Pennsylvania sales tax, with approximately 10.2 percent 
of the purchases subject to Philadelphia County’s additional sales tax. New Jersey sales and 
excise taxes brought in $11.7 billion in revenue, and Pennsylvania’s sales and excise taxes 
brought in $15.1 billion in revenue in 2011 (USGR 2013-TN2652). 


NUREG-2168 


2-130 


November 2015 










Affected Environment 


Table 2-27. Operation-Related Payroll and Purchases for Materials and Services (2005 to 
2008) for HCGS and SGS 



2005 to 2008 

Total Payroll* 3 * 

2005 to 2008 

Total Purchases* 3 * 

2011 Gross 
Domestic 
Product** 5 * 

State/County 

Amount 

($) 

Percent 

(%) 

Amount 

(S) 

Percent 

(%) 

Millions 

($) 

Delaware 

113,345,839 

18.5 

30,474,596 

1.0 

65,755 

New Castle 

112,544,189 

18.3 

27,092,454 

0.9 


New Jersey 

433,607,381 

70.5 

2,013,454,403 

65.0 

486,989 

Cumberland 

60,774,838 

9.9 

9,143,649 

0.3 


Gloucester 

92,672,170 

15.1 

33,405,305 

1.1 


Salem 

234,000,031 

38.1 

23,116,205 

0.8 


Pennsylvania 

50,637,062 

8.2 

963,982,798 

31.1 

578,839 

Philadelphia 

139,441 

<0.1 

314,559,594 

10.2 

353,323 

Other States 

16,662,371 

2.7 

87,773,591 

2.8 


Total 

614,252,652 

100 

3,095,685,388 

100.0 


Total economic 
impact area 

499,991,227 

81.4 

92,757,613 

3.0 



(a) PSEG 2015-TN4280. 

(b) USGR 2013-TN2652. 


Corporate and Income Taxes 

Employees of a new plant would contribute income taxes and property taxes to the jurisdictions 
where they reside and sales taxes where they make purchases. Based on data presented in 
Table 2-23, 72.4 percent of the operations workers at the plant would be expected to live in New 
Jersey, 17.1 percent in Delaware, and 7.8 percent in Pennsylvania. As shown in Table 2-26, 
the wages and salaries of employees living in New Jersey would be subject to state income tax 
rates of between 1.4 and 8.97 percent, and those living in Pennsylvania would be subject to a 
rate of 3.07 percent (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Employees residing in Delaware would be subject 
to state income tax rates ranging from 0.0 percent (for incomes under $2,000) to $2,943.50 plus 
6.75 percent of the amount of income over $60,000. Table 2-27 indicates how the operations 
payroll for HCGS and SGS was distributed among the counties where employees resided 
between 2005 and 2008. The review team expects that the payroll for a new plant would be 
similarly distributed. In 2011, New Jersey received $10.6 billion, Pennsylvania received 
$9.8 billion, and Delaware received $1.0 billion in income tax revenue. PSEG has a 9 percent 
energy receipts tax rate in New Jersey. New Jersey received $2.2 billion in revenue in 2011 
from corporate income taxes (USGR 2013-TN2652). 

Property Taxes 

Employees who own their residences would pay property taxes to the counties and/or 
municipalities in which their homes were located. In the New Jersey portion of the economic 
impact area, property tax rates vary from one township to another and are assessed at rates per 
$100 of assessed value. As shown in Table 2-26, rates range from $1.268 to $3,688 in Salem 
County, $1,733 to $5,503 in Cumberland County, and $2,232 to $6,626 in Gloucester County 


November 2015 


2-131 


NUREG-2168 









Affected Environment 


(NJ Treasury 2013-TN2341). Employees residing in New Castle County, Delaware, would pay 
a county property tax at a rate of 0.7006 in addition to a municipal or school district property tax 
at rates ranging from 1.8236 to 3.9901 (DEDO 2012-TN3121). 

2.5.2.3 Transportation 

The transportation system of the economic impact area reflects its location near the edge of the 
nation’s fifth largest metropolitan area, the Philadelphia Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) 
(USCB 2012-TN3119). Available transportation resources include a diverse road network, rail 
lines, airports, waterways, and public transportation. This section describes each of these 
resources. 

Roads and Highways 

The roads in the economic impact area are an extensive network ranging from major interstate 
highways in the northwest, to urban street networks in local population centers, to open 
highways and roads in more rural areas. Figure 2-9 in Section 2.2.1 shows major highways in 
the region. Interstate 95, which connects major population centers on the East Coast from 
Miami, Florida to the Canadian border, passes through northern New Castle County near the 
western edge of the economic impact area. Interstate 295 diverges from Interstate 95 in 
northern New Castle County, crosses the Delaware River via the Delaware Memorial Bridge, 
and traverses the northwestern portions of Salem and Gloucester Counties. The New Jersey 
Turnpike, a major north-south connector in the state, also passes through western Salem and 
Gloucester Counties. At their closest points, Interstate 295 and the New Jersey Turnpike are 
approximately 14.0 mi north of the PSEG Site. 

In the vicinity of the PSEG Site, major highways include New Jersey State Routes 49 and 45, 
which cross the New Jersey portion of the economic impact area in northwest-to-southeast and 
southwest-to-northeast directions, respectively. These highways intersect in the City of Salem, 
approximately 7.5 mi northeast of the site. Delaware Route 9 is located about 3.1 mi west of the 
PSEG Site, and Delaware Routes 1 and 13 are just over 5 mi to the west. However, these 
routes are located on the other side of the Delaware River from the site and would not be 
affected by building or operating a new plant at the PSEG Site. 

Figure 2-23 depicts the local road network in the vicinity of the PSEG Site. The only land 
access to HCGS and SGS is provided by Alloway Creek Neck Road, which enters the southeast 
corner of the existing PSEG property and ends at an intersection with Hancocks Bridge Road 
approximately 7 mi to the east. From this intersection, some workers from Cumberland County 
follow Harmersville Peck’s Corner Road (County Highway 657) east to reach New Jersey State 
Route 49. However, most workers travel north on Hancocks Bridge Road (County 
Highway 658) to the City of Salem. At that point, they may choose among several routes 
through the town to proceed to destinations to the north, northeast, or northwest towards the 
rest of the economic impact area. The most prominent of these routes are New Jersey State 
Routes 49 and 45, Grieves Parkway, Chestnut Street, and Oak Street. Annual traffic volumes 
at critical locations on these routes are shown in Table 2-28. 


NUREG-2168 


2-132 


November 2015 




Affected Environment 



Figure 2-23. Local Road Network in the Vicinity of the PSEG Site (Source: Modified 
from PSEG 2015-TN4280) 


November 2015 


2-133 


NUREG-2168 


















Affected Environment 


Table 2-28. Annual Average Daily Traffic Counts on Selected Roads Near the PSEG Site 


Map 

ID (a) 

Roadway and Location 

Annual 
Average 
Daily Traffic 

Year 

of 

Count 

1 

NJ 49, between NJ 45 and York Street 

9,936 

2008 

2 

NJ 45, between County Road (CR) 657 and Howell Street 

9,255 

2010 

3 

Alloway Creek Neck Road, between Grosscup Road and Pancoast Road 

3,388 

2009 

4 

Fort Elfsborg Road, between CR 627 and Mason Point Road 

320 

2010 

5 

Money Island Road, just south of CR 627 

409 

2009 

6 

Chestnut Street, between Grieves Parkway and Maple Avenue 

1,787 

2008 

7 

Grieves Parkway, between CR 625 (Chestnut) and CR 665 (Walnut) 

3,401 

2010 

8 

Oak Street, between Chestnut Street and Wesley Street 

1,443 

2010 

(a) Traffic count locations are depicted on Figure 2-23. 

Source: NJDOT 2013-TN2330. 


The New Jersey Department of Transportation’s FY 2012 to 2021 Statewide Transportation 
Improvement Program (NJDOT 2012-TN2324) includes two proposed projects for Salem 
County that could affect the accessibility of the PSEG Site: 

• resurfacing of Commissioners Pike from Woodstown Road (County Road [CR] 603) to 
Watson Mill Road (CR 672) (approximately 11.7 mi northeast of the site) and 

• reconstruction and/or widening of Hancocks Bridge Road (CR 658) from Fort Elfsborg Road 
(CR 624) to Hancocks Bridge. 

In conjunction with a new plant at the site, PSEG would build a causeway from the site to the 
intersection of Money Island Road and Masons Point Road, a distance of approximately 4.8 mi 
(see Figure 2-23). The northern portion of the causeway would follow the existing alignment of 
Money Island Road. The workforces for building and operating a new plant at the site would be 
expected to use the causeway instead of the existing access to the PSEG Site. Data in 
Table 2-28 indicate traffic volumes on the roads at the northern terminus of the proposed 
causeway (Fort Elfsborg Road and Money Island Road) are much lower than those on other 
roads in the vicinity where traffic counts were conducted (NJDOT 2012-TN2324). 

Rail 

Rail lines in the economic impact area and the region are shown on Figure 2-9 in Section 2.2.1. 
Lines include Norfolk Southern in Delaware and Southern Railroad New Jersey, Conrail, and 
Winchester and Western in New Jersey. The railroad closest to the PSEG Site is a Southern 
Railroad New Jersey line that serves industries in the City of Salem. Only freight rail service is 
available in the New Jersey portion of the economic impact area. The nearest Amtrak 
stations are in Newark and Wilmington, Delaware, 17 and 18 mi northwest of the PSEG Site, 
respectively. 


NUREG-2168 


2-134 


November 2015 









Affected Environment 


Air 

Table 2-29 lists airports serving the economic impact area. The New Castle County Airport in 
Delaware provides limited commercial and private air services connecting to other major 
airports in the region. Two additional airports—one each in New Castle County, Delaware, and 
Cumberland County, New Jersey—serve general aviation uses only. The Philadelphia 
International Airport in Pennsylvania, approximately 31.5 mi northeast of the PSEG Site, is the 
nearest airport that provides commercial flights (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 


Table 2-29. Business and General Aviation Airports Serving the Economic Impact Area 


Airport Name 

County 

Closest City 

State 

Type of Airport 

New Castle Airport 

New Castle 

Wilmington 

DE 

Local Business 

Summit Airport 

New Castle 

Middletown 

DE 

General Aviation 

Millville Municipal Airport 

Cumberland 

Millville 

NJ 

General Aviation 

Philadelphia International Airport 

Philadelphia 

Philadelphia 

PA 

Regional Business 

Source: PSEG 2015-TN4280. 


Water 

The Delaware River, which separates the Delaware and New Jersey portions of the economic 
impact area, is a major navigable waterway of the eastern United States. A total of 12 ports and 
harbors are located along the river, including 4 within the economic impact area: Delaware City 
and the Port of Wilmington in New Castle County, Delaware; Deepwater Point in Salem County, 
New Jersey; and the Port of Paulsboro in Gloucester County, New Jersey (WPS 2013-TN2353). 
The existing PSEG property is located at Delaware RM 52 and includes barge slips at the 
southern end and western side of the site. 

Public Transportation 

Public transportation is available throughout the economic impact area. The Cumberland Area 
Transit System provides a shared ride curb-to-curb bus transportation service to county 
residents who are at least 60 years old, disabled, veterans, blind, and the general public. Fares 
are based on the funding source that is available to the client and the purpose of the trip being 
provided (Cumberland County 2013-TN2309). The Gloucester County Transportation Service 
provides a similar service to Gloucester County residents, with an added category for low 
income families (Gloucester County 2014-TN3123), and the Salem County Specialized 
Transportation Services is available to residents who are 60 and over or disabled (Salem 
County 2013-TN2333). New Castle County public transportation is provided by the Delaware 
Transit Corporation, which has its principal hub in Wilmington. This transit corporation provides 
full-service busing, including paratransit services (individualized, non-fixed routes), and has 
fixed bus routes available throughout much of New Castle County (NCATA 2014-TN3124). 

The New Jersey Transit has several bus routes that serve local needs, as well as service to 
Philadelphia and Atlantic City. New Jersey Transit provides one local bus route in Salem 
County and four bus routes that provide service between points in the economic impact area 
and Philadelphia (New Jersey Transit 2014-TN3126). 


November 2015 


2-135 


NUREG-2168 







Affected Environment 


2.5.2.4 A esthetics and Recreation 

The economic impact area is located primarily in the Coastal Plain physiographic province, 
which is characterized by gently rolling hills and valleys. The extreme northwestern corner of 
New Castle County is in the Piedmont province and exhibits considerably more topographic 
relief (NJDEP 2013-TN2329; USGS 2013-TN2352). Elevations in the economic impact area 
range from sea level to about 400 ft in the Piedmont province. 

The immediate visual environment of the PSEG Site is dominated by the Delaware River, which 
borders the site to the west and south, and coastal marshes to the east and north of the site. 

The Delaware River is approximately 2.7 mi wide at this point and consists of open water with 
occasional commercial and recreational water craft. The coastal marshes extend about 2.4 mi 
to the east and 4.1 mi to the north and consist of watercourses meandering through marsh 
grasses. Just beyond the marshes, the topographic character changes to upland agricultural 
areas dominated by cultivated fields, deciduous wooded areas, and rural residential 
development. 

The industrial visual character of the existing HCGS and SGS facilities contrasts with the river 
and coastal marsh surroundings. The structures on the site, particularly the HCGS 512-ft-tall 
cooling tower and its associated plume, are prominently visible, particularly from the Delaware 
River and from the opposite shore in New Castle County. While these features are also visible 
from the surrounding coastal marshes, trees screen them from view from the upland areas. 

The economic impact area offers numerous opportunities for outdoor recreation. The Delaware 
River immediately west of the PSEG Site is used for recreational boating and fishing. In 
addition, a number of WMAs, state parks, and other protected areas provide settings for diverse 
outdoor recreation, including boating, fishing, hunting, bird watching, hiking, and camping. 
According to the License Renewal EIS for HCGS/SGS and discussions with local officials, 
muskrat trapping is a popular recreational activity in the vicinity of the site (NRC 2012-TN2499; 
NRC 2011-TN3131). 

New Castle County, Delaware, is home to 25 state parks, wildlife areas, and other recreational 
areas. Several recreation areas in the county are located along the banks of the Delaware River 
and offer views of the existing structures on the PSEG Site. These areas include Augustine 
Beach Access Area (169 ac), Augustine WMA (2,667 ac), and Cedar Swamp State WMA 
(4,840 ac) (DNREC 2011-TN3179; DNREC 2013-TN2314; Delaware Greenways-TN2316). 

Cumberland County, New Jersey, hosts two natural land trusts (Glades Wildlife Refuge and 
Peak Reserve) that occupy 7,756 ac. In Salem County, New Jersey, 17,775 ac are devoted to 
recreation and wildlife protection, including four state parks (12,566 ac), Supawna Meadows 
National Wildlife Refuge (4,600 ac), Burdon Hill Preserve (609 ac), Mad Horse Creek WMA 
(9,500 ac), and Abbots Meadow WMA (1,011 ac). A portion of the New Jersey Coastal Heritage 
Trail runs through Salem and Cumberland Counties. 

According to PSEG’s ER, 5.97 million people visit the five National Wildlife Refuges and two 
national parks annually. Also, there are 27 recreational facilities within 10 mi of the PSEG Site 
with approximately 3,100 daily visitors (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 


NUREG-2168 


2-136 


November 2015 



Affected Environment 


PSEG allows public recreational use on lands it owns in its EEP, including marsh and upland 
areas along the Delaware Bay in New Jersey and Delaware. These include two wildlife 
observation platforms in the marsh area northeast of the PSEG Site. Access to these sites is 
provided by Money Island Road, and facilities include parking areas and boardwalks to the 
observation decks. 

2.5.2.5 Housing 

Approximately 83 percent of the workforce employed at HCGS and SGS reside in the economic 
impact area. An additional 16 percent live within 50 mi of the site in 25 counties in New Jersey, 
Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Maryland (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Workers involved in building 
and operating a new plant at the PSEG Site are expected to follow a similar residential pattern. 
Thus, this section concentrates on providing housing data for the economic impact area, while 
providing less detail for the 50-mi region. 

Table 2-30 provides data describing the housing environment in the economic impact area. In 
2012, there were 410,558 housing units in the economic impact area, of which approximately 
92.6 percent were occupied. Of the occupied units, approximately 72 percent were owner- 
occupied, and the remainder were rental units (USCB 2010-TN3132). 


Table 2-30. Housing Data for Counties in the Economic Impact Area (2012) 



New Castle 
County, 
Delaware 

Cumberland 
County, 
New Jersey 

Gloucester 
County, 
New Jersey 

Salem 

County, New 
Jersey 

Economic 
Impact Area 

Total housing units 

217,357 

55,880 

109,884 

27,437 

410,558 

Occupied 

200,618 

50,733 

104,091 

24,950 

382,434 

Owner-occupied 

140,751 

34,439 

83,949 

17,941 

277,080 

Renter-occupied 

59,867 

16,294 

20,142 

7,009 

103,312 

Vacant units 

15,239 

6,174 

6,453 

2,712 

30,578 

Median monthly rent ($) 

1,003 

958 

1,034 

936 

— 

Vacancy rate (%) 

7.7 

9.2 

5.3 

9.1 

6.9 

Median value ($) 

251,200 

174,400 

232,400 

197,200 

— 

Source: USCB 2010-TN3132. 


Table 2-30 indicates that 30,578 vacant housing units were available for purchase or rent in all 
counties of the economic impact area and that every county had a significant supply of vacant 
units. The median value of homes in the economic impact area ranged from $174,400 in 
Cumberland County to $251,200 in New Castle County, while the average monthly rent for 
rental units ranged from $936 in Salem County to $1,034 in Gloucester County (USCB 2010- 
TN3132). 

Temporary housing is available at many hotels, motels, and campgrounds in the economic 
impact area. In 2007, the area hosted 107 hotels, including 60 in New Castle County, 

17 in Cumberland County, 21 in Gloucester County, and 9 in Salem County. In addition, 

10 campgrounds and recreational vehicle parks (i.e., 2 in New Castle County, 4 in Gloucester 
County, and 4 in Salem County) and 7 bed and breakfast or rooms (i.e., 3 in New Castle 


November 2015 


2-137 


NUREG-2168 








Affected Environment 


County, 3 in Cumberland County, and 1 in Gloucester County) were located in the four-county 
area (USCB 2007-TN3133). 

2.5.2.6 Public Services 

The following subsections provide information about public services provided to residents of the 
economic impact area. The public services discussed include water and wastewater; police, 
fire, and medical services; social services; and education. 

Water and Wastewater 

Residents of the economic impact area obtain drinking water from both communal water 
systems and individual wells. The New Castle County 2012 Comprehensive Plan Update 
(NCCDE 2012-TN3151) reports the county is served by six water systems, including four public 
systems and two private systems. In addition, numerous private wells are used by individual 
homeowners and businesses. Surface water provides 75 percent of the county’s drinking water, 
with groundwater providing the remaining 25 percent. The comprehensive plan estimates there 
are approximately one billion gallons of surplus drinking water available within the county. 

The comprehensive plan update estimates the water supply of the northern portion of New 
Castle County at approximately 127 Mgd, including 94 Mgd surface water and 33 Mgd 
groundwater. This portion of the county is considered to have a healthy surplus of water for 
peak drought demands through 2020 and beyond. In the southern portion of New Castle 
County, which draws all its water from aquifers, the available groundwater is estimated to be 
20 to 30 Mgd. In this area, the comprehensive plan update expects water supplies to be 
adequate through 2030 and beyond, based on conservative projections (NCCDE 2012- 
TN3151). 

Drinking water in the New Jersey portion of the economic impact area comes from a number of 
public and private water systems and from individual private wells. Table 2-31 lists the water 
systems in Cumberland, Gloucester, and Salem Counties, along with information about the 
capacity and peak demand of these systems. Capacity exceeds peak demand in every system. 

In Cumberland County combined peak demand is 86 percent of combined capacity, with an 
excess capacity of 3.995 Mgd. The peak demand for drinking water in Gloucester County is 
63.8 percent of combined capacity, leaving an excess capacity of 24.733 Mgd. In Salem 
County peak demand is 65.3 percent of combined capacity, with an excess capacity of 
2.646 Mgd. Overall, peak demand for water in the New Jersey portion of the economic impact 
area is 70 percent of the combined capacity of the water systems, leaving an excess capacity of 
31.374 Mgd (NJDEP 2013-TN3154). Cumberland County officials confirm water systems in the 
county are near capacity, while Salem County officials state their county has available capacity 
above current usage rates (NRC 2012-TN2499). 


NUREG-2168 


2-138 


November 2015 



Table 2-31. Major Water Supply Systems (Serving 5,000 or More People) in New Jersey Counties of the Economic Impact 
Area 


Affected Environment 


V) 

0 

0 

_ _ _ 

'0 0 

CO 

LO 

o- 

1/5 

CO 

h- 

0- 

05 

05 



00 

Ol 

LO 

00 

04 

04 

CO 

LO 

CO 

CO 

0 

0 

CO 

O' 

0 

re O) 

ID 

h- 

co 

05 

04 

CO 

04 

T— 

05 

00 

CO 

04 

T— 

CO 

0- 

0 

CO 

0 

LO 

CO 

O' 

05 

T — 

O' 

o- 

X 

f z — 

0 

O 

05 

05 

05 

04 

0 


LO 

CO 


o- 

05 


00 

0 

0 

CO 


00 

0- 

O' 

CO 

CO 

CO 

co 

LU 

T 

T— 

0 

CO 

O 


d 

04 

O 

d 

T— 

d 

d 

d 

0 

id 

04 

T— 

oi 

d 

CM 

d 

d 

T— 

04 

CO 

T3 

c 

re 

E 

s+_ ^ 


CO 

00 

O 

O' 


04 

O 

O 

CO 

O' 

r^ 

LO 

CO 

05 

00 


05 

CO 

00 

O' 



CO 

0 

Q. 
0 TO 

05 

O' 

00 

CO 

T- 


CO 

d 

d 


LO 

O' 


T — 

d 

' 

oi 

LO 

cb 

cb 


05 

cb 

LO 

d 

0 

N- 

N- 

05 

00 

00 

LO 

CO 

0- 

co 

CO 

0- 

N- 

o- 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

0- 

O' 

CO 

0- 

Q 

re 2 



























>> 


"re 

■O 

C 

•O 

CO 

CO 

0 

05 

0 

CO 

0- 

CO 

05 

O 

T _ 

0- 

CO 

ID 

CNJ 

04 

04 

0 

10 

04 

0 

04 

0 

04 

CO 

G 

re 

0 

LO 

CO 

T— 

05 

CO 

0. 

0 

04 

00 

05 

h- 

CO 

04 

x— 

05 

0- 

04 

O' 

CO 

LO 

00 

LO 

CO 

CO 

v 

E 

05 

0 

CO 

to 

LO 

05 

N- 

CO 

■«— 

O 

■*— 

CO 

00 

CO 

CO 


05 

co 

CO 

CO 

O; 

05 

O' 

10 

05 

05 

re 

0 

2 

O' 

ib 

O' 

ib 

d 

O' 

oi 

O' 

T— 

04 

ib 

04 

04 

r— 

T— 


O' 

d 

T— 

cb 

r-’ 

T— 

T— 

O' 

04 

0 

CL 

Q 





04 
















O' 





O- 


— >* 


ro 

Q 

"re 


o -a 

(Z 05 
CJ 


o 

(D 

£ 

£ 

re 

E 


04 

00 

O' 

O' 

CD 

O 

O' 

04 

CO 

O' 

04 

LO 

0 

0 

0 

O' 

O’ 

00 

O 

0- 

co 

04 

O 

CO 

05 

CO 

01 

04 

T— 

T— 

O 

0 

04 

04 

co 

10 

0 

CO 

co 

05 

04 

CO 

04 

O 

0 

05 

N- 

CO 

04 

O’ 

O 

CO 

CO 

LO 

CNJ 

CO 

■»— 

CO 

r-- 

CO 

T— 

CO 

0 

■»— 

LO 

05 

0 

0. 

LO 

x— 

CO 

co 

CO 

CO 

CM 

ib 


LO 

CO 

T— 

CO 

cb 

cb 

T— 

oi 


cb 

cb 

oi 

1— 

c\i 


tL 

O' 

CO 

oi 


cb 

r--’ 

O' 



T— 

CM 












T— 




CO 





0 






0 

0 

0 



0 

0 

0 


0 


0 


0 








O 

O 

O 



O 

O 

0 


0 


O 


O 








re 

re 

re 



re 

re 

re 


re 


re 


re 








t 

t 

1= 



t: 

t: 

•c 


t 


t 


0 








3 

3 

3 



3 

3 

3 


3 


3 


3 




“O 

c 

~a 

c 

"O 

c 

"O 

c 

CO 

CO 

C/5 

■0 

c 

■O 

c 

CO 

C/5 

C/5 

T5 

c 

CO 

X3 

c 

C/5 

0 

c 

C/5 

0 

c 

0 

C 

0 

O 

3 

3 

3 

3 

■0 

■0 

TJ 

3 

3 

TD 

T5 

"O 

3 

■0 

3 

T3 

3 

0 

3 

3 

re 

O 

O 

O 

O 

0 

0 

0 

O 

O 

0 

0 

0 

O 

0 

O 

0 

O 

0 

O 

O 

0 

1_ 

\ _ 

\ _ 

L_ 

0 

0 

0 


1— 

0 

0 

0 

i_ 

0 

L. 

0 

1— 

0 

k_ 

1_ 

3 

O 

G 

O 

O 

re 

re 

re 

O 

O 

re 

re 

re 

O 

re 

CD 

re 

O 

re 

O 

O 

C/5 





-C 

-C 

xz 



xz 

xz 

xz 


xz 


0 


0 








0 

0 

0 



0 

0 

0 


0 


0 


0 








k_ 

i— 

i_ 



l_ 

k— 

i_ 


l_ 


&_ 


u. 








3 

3 

3 



3 

3 

3 


3 


3 


3 








CL 

CL 

CL 



CL 

Q_ 

CL 


CL 


CL 


CL 





C 

O _ 

0 

O 

O 

0 

LO 

0 

O’ 

00 


CO 

LO 

O 

0 

0 

10 

0 

0 

0 

0 


CO 

O 

05 

LO 

CO 

0 

0 

O 

O 

0 

LO 

0 

LO 

CO 

CM 

T— 

O’ 

LO 

LO 

0 

O’ 

0 

0 

0 

0 

h- 

O 

O 

05 

0 

1^- 

TO ® 

o- 

LO 

CD 

CM 

x— 

o_ 

CO 

CM 

05 

I s - 

x— 

O’ 

CO 

CM 

O' 

0 

0 

0 

0 

LO 

O' 

LO_ 

X— 

x— 

co_ 


cm’ 

fd 

cb 

cb" 

0-' 

co’ 

05’ 

O’ 

O’ 

T—" 

co' 

05’ 

co' 

cb 

05' 

co’ 

d 

co' 

T-" 

CO’ 

O’ 

cb 

co' 

O’ 

co’ 

0 O 

CM 

CM 

co 

00 


CM 


CM 


T— 

CM 





O’ 

CM 


T— 

CM 

T— 

T— 


CO 

O’ 





















CM 





CO 

a. 



























a) 

E 

re 

Z 

E 

0 ) 

CO 

> 

05 

l_ 

0 

■*-> 

re 

£ 


c 

0 

E 

■e 

re 

CL 

> a? 

c Q 

i | 

O ^ 

■o > 
c c 
re o 

>- 0 

® 05 

-Q 0 

| m 
o 


>> 

> 

is 5 

Z> u- 

- 2 

0 $ 

$ 0 
0 C/5 
C/5 -q 

0 O 
C o 

re >- 
i_ 0 
® re 

I 5 

> 0 

0 = 
= _re 

> 0 
= c 


re 

o 

S 

3 

C/5 


c 

0 

E 

0 

re 

. CL 

>> 0 

c Q 

3 i_ 

O 0 

CJ re 

o ^ 

S J 

° m 

3 J2 


c 

0 

E 

r 

re 

CL 
0 
Q 
*1- fc- 

o Q) 
5 re 

5| 

i- 9- 

<P !c 


c 

o 

0 


^ re 
2? X 


c 

re 

cn 

o 


o o 


^ > -§ © o 

O 


If 

s.* 2 

:§ € 

I 1 

0 ® 

p o 

Q- 0 

0 re 
Q LU 


c c £ 

E E < 

■c t; >- 
re §_ ® 
a. 9- re ~ 


3 

< 

— 

0 


>> > 
c c 
re re 

CL CL 

E E 

o o 


c 

0 

E c 
0 0 
re e 


3 

< 

0 

re 


re O O cl p 

> m L- 


0 

re 


0 g_ 


> o 

> c 

o i 

$ re 

c 3 

W ® r 

ro 8? re 

O O ^ 


_ 0 0 
S re re 

•§■ s 5 

"c c c 
3 re re 
*=r o o 


n 

LJ CL 

i_ 0 

£ Q 
re 

£ I 

re 


re 

Q. 

O 

"c 

3 


C 

0 

E 

0 

re 

CL 

0 

Q 

0 

re 


c 

0 

E 

n 

re 

o. 

0 

Q 


o u o > 


O 

JD 

0 


0 ) 0 0 

o E E 

c < < 
0 — 3—5 


o 

_a c 
0 re 

3 E 
re 

CL CL 


c 

o 

05 0 

.E Q 

JO — 
0 0 
re 0 


-o £ 

P 

0 


c 

0 

E 

0 

re 

CL 

0 

a 

0 

re 


0 

> 

o 

6 

0 

c 

c 

0 

CL 


>k — 

c c 
re 0 
g- E 
E 0 
o re 
O Q- 

- 5 

0 Q 

re 


£ £ 


> c 
re 


0 

re 


0 

0 


3 

XZ 

0 

O 

O 


> -n m 


^ ^ ^ ^ -Q .2 


re 

o 

S 

3 

C/5 


c 

3 

O 

o 


O 0 ) 


0 
E 
E < 


0 

re 

C/5 


> 

0 

c 

c 

0 

CL 


c 

0 

E 

0 

re 

CL 

0 

Q 

0 

re 

S 15 

E o 

_0 ^ 

re 3 
CO CO 


re 


CO 


November 2015 


2-139 


NUREG-2168 






Affected Environment 


According to data in Table 2-32, wastewater treatment systems in New Castle County had 
significant excess capacity in 2008, with current usage amounting to 69.20 percent of their total 
capacities and 32.36 Mgd of capacity remaining. However, the county’s 2012 comprehensive 
plan update (NCCDE 2012-TN3151) notes that the northern portion of the county (north of the 
Chesapeake and Delaware Canal) is served by the Wilmington Wastewater Treatment Plant 
and that a number of areas in this part of the county have little or no remaining available 
capacity. In these areas, unimproved property owners desiring to develop their land must defer 
development until sufficient capacity becomes available, make system repairs or upgrades that 
provide sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed development, or provide onsite 
sewage treatment. 

The New Castle County 2012 plan update states there are three public wastewater treatment 
plants in the southern portion of the county, one in the Town of Middleton and two controlled by 
the county. The 2008 data in Table 2-32 indicates these systems are small (with capacities 
ranging from 0.05 Mgd to 1.70 Mgd) and have relatively little excess capacity remaining 
(0.01 Mgd to 0.5 Mgd) (NCCDE 2012-TN3151). 

In Salem County, seven wastewater treatment plants serve 34,059 people. The capacity of 
these plants ranges from 0.05 Mgd to 1.8 Mgd, and the total capacity of all the plants is 
5.93 Mgd. Current flows into the plants total 3.88 Mgd, leaving an excess capacity of 2.05 Mgd 
or 34.57 percent of the total capacity. Average daily use rates for the individual systems range 
from 40 percent of capacity for two plants serving the Lower Alloways Creek area to 88 percent 
for the Penns Grove Sewer Authority (EPA 2012-TN3162). 

Three wastewater treatment plants in Cumberland County serve 85,311 people. The plants 
have a combined capacity of 20.20 Mgd and an average daily flow of 11.36 Mgd, resulting in an 
excess capacity of 8.84 Mgd (43.76 percent of total capacity). Usage-to-capacity ratios for the 
individual plants range from 48.72 percent for the Cumberland County Utility Authority plant to 
65.37 percent for the Landis Sewerage Authority plant (EPA 2012-TN3162). Cumberland 
County officials confirm that extra capacity is available within the county (NRC 2012-TN2499). 
Gloucester County has five wastewater treatment plants serving 190,369 people. The 
combined capacity of the plants is 28.25 Mgd, and the total average daily flow is 22.12 Mgd, 
leaving an excess capacity of 6.13 Mgd (27.71 percent of total capacity). Average daily use 
rates for the individual plants range from 50 percent for the Harrison sewage treatment plant to 
91 percent for the Greenwich sewage treatment plant (EPA 2012-TN3162). County officials 
note most of the public wastewater systems serve the northern portion of the county, while the 
southern portion relies mostly on individual septic systems (NRC 2012-TN2499). 


NUREG-2168 


2-140 


November 2015 




Affected Environment 


00 

o 

o 

CNI 

ro 

0 


o 

re 

a 

E 

o 

E 

o 

c 

o 

o 

HI 

a> 


w) 

E 

0) 

■*-> 

</) 

CO 

■ 4 -* 

c 

0) 

E 

■*-> 

ro 

0) 


(D 

■*-> 

ro 

£ 

a> 

C/5 

CO 

£ 


-Q 

3 

CL 


CNI 

CO 

■ 

CM 

_a> 

X! 

ro 


o 
«0 


re 

T 3 

■M - 

05 

T— 

o 

o 

05 


T— 


o 

05 

o 

CO 

00 

CO 

CO 

05 

05 

CM 

o 

CO 

CO 

in 

CM 

O 

O) 

05 

CM 

o 

LO 

CO 

in 

00 

M; 

CO 

X— 

o 



o 

T- 

in 

o 

CM 

CO 

CM 

o 

o 

C 5 

CO 

0 

0 


CO 

O 

o 

o 

CM 

CO 

CO 

c\i 

CM 

CO 

in 

o 

C 5 

o 

b 

CO 

o 

CO 

o 

b 

b 

b 

b 

CM 

b 

M- 


a? 

o 

x 

LU 


«/) 

(0 

— 0 

u_ a> 

05 Q 

•E o 

0 

X ° 
LU 


CO _ 

O -O 

O)^, 

£ I 

0 o 

X LL 
LU 


<0 ^ 
T3 
o cn 

•“ 5 
c 

® $ 
C /5 O 

s = 


c 

o 

re 

3 

a 

o 

CL 


E 

0 ) 

♦-> 

C /5 

>s 

CO 

■«-> 

c 

0 

E 

*-> 

(0 

a) 


0 

+-> 

CO 

£ 

0 

■*-> 

0 

ro 

£ 


T— 

o 

o 

05 

O 

N- 


00 

in 


o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

n- 

CO 

o 

o 

o 

CM 

CO 

CO 

o 

o 

in 

CM 


CO 

h~- 

CM 

00 

o 

O 

o 

C 5 

CO 

o 

o 

C 0 

CO 

CO 

o 

o 

M" 

o 

b 

b 

b 

b 

b 

C 0 

in 

t-L 

b 

00 


b 

i-- 

00 

00 

in 

00 

b 

T— 

b 

b 

b 

in 

b 

CO 

in 

00 

N- 

CO 


CO 

in 

m 


05 

in 

N- 


1 ^- 

in 

CO 

CO 


CO 

CO 


CO 

CO 












CO 



CO 


in 


CM 

05 

CO 

i^- 




CO 

m 

M" 

o 

05 

T— 

CO 

05 

CD 

O 

o 

o 



CM 

T— 

CO 

co 

n- 

o 

T— 

CM 

00 

co 

CM 

CM 

O 

CM 

CO 

M; 

CO 

in 

CO 

O 

05 

vr 

in 

CM 


h- 

CO 

in 

in 

CO 

o 

o 

co 

o 

T— 

b 

b 

T— 

CM 

b 

in 

CM 

T— 

b 

b 

b 


b 

CM 

b 

b 


b 

b 

b 

b 

b 

b 





N- 




T— 

T— 





CM 









T— 


N- 

O 

in 

o 

in 

o 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

in 

in 

O 

in 

in 

r^. 

o 

o 

in 

in 

CO 

o 


N- 

in 

o 

h- 

o 

o 

CM 

O 

CM 

▼— 

o 

°o 

o 

co 

CM 

CO 

c- 

C 0 

M; 

in 

o 

C 5 

05 


0 

CM 

b 

b 


in 

b 

00 

in 

b 

b 

T— 

b 

CM 

b 

CO 

T— 

b 

T — 

T— 

b 

b 

b 

in 

b 

o 

O 




o 




CM 

CM 





CM 









in 




o 

05 

CM 

CO 

M" 

T— 

I s - 

CO 

T— 

T— 

T— 

CO 

CO 

00 

05 

CO 

CO 

co 

CO 

o 

I s - 

CM 

05 

CO 

T3 

M" 

h- 

CO 

CM 

O 

N- 

o 

CO 

T— 

T— 

T— 

M - 

05 

O 

CO 

T— 

CO 

00 

I s - 

CO 

T— 

N- 

in 


0 


00 

CM 

CM„ 

in 

I s - 

CO 

CM_ 

CO 

CM 

in 

CM 

co 

O 

CO 

CO 

cq 


co 

CM 

CO 



CM 

t 

cm" 

T—‘ 


b 

o" 

cm" 

b 

CO 

in 

co' 


co' 

T—' 

cm' 

o' 

I s -' 

co' 

cm' 

in' 

b 




o' 

0 

CM 




CO 

CM 

CO 

CM 

00 

CO 



r — 


05 



T— 





CO 

M- 

c n 

in 




in 





T_ 





T_ 









00 


0 

re 

£ 

_re 

0 

Q 

>* 

+-> 

c 

3 

o 
o 
_0 
■*-> 

0 
re c 
O ri 

5 £ 

0 


CL 
I— 
C/5 

c 

o 

-*—■ 

cn 

c 


0. 

I— 

“ D- 
b I- 

b ^ 


0 

L— 

03 

£ 

_ro 

0 

Q 


c 

c 

0 

CL 

tr 

o 

CL 


C/5 

E 

re 

LL 

0 

re 

£ 


CL 
I— 
CO 

> 

> ^ 

QJ >s 

0 s 

i_ co 

0 C 

-) re 

$ o 

0 CJ 

z < 

>» 3 

i o 
o ° 
o Y 


re 


re 
•*—> 1 

o 

S 


T3 
C 
re 0 


0 

n 


JD 

E 

3 — 3 

05 E o 

3 

o 


re 
o 
.c 

3 

< Q_ 

0 ^ 

cn 05 

2 0 

0 = 

$ > 

0 — 

CO ^ 
co -- 
T5 ° —- 

c >* -Q 
re •- 3 
JU05 


> -t; 

0 i? 

0 < 


0 


0 n 

0 j± 

0 —) Q. 

£ I C 

3 O 


$ 

o 


o 

(J 


0 


re 

o 


CO 
0 
C/5 O 


0 


_c 

o 

> 

c 

0 

0 


CL 

I— 

05 

"O 

0 

P: ^ fo 

l— < -o 

.9- 2 co 

w .2- o 

c ^ ° 

c 

$ 


< 

0 Q_ 

2 j= 
0 «2 


0 


05 


o 

re 


c 

0 

E 

-4 —» 

re 

0 


0 

re 0- 


£ 

o 


3 

O _ 

goo 


c 

O 

CO 

*L_ 
l _ 

re 

X 


O _Q 

0 


0 

"O 

0 


c 

re 

cn 5 . 
o > 
_i 05 


2 6 

o o 

-Q <- 
3 


- .E 0 

>* o > 

c 

3 


x P 


0 O 

aT <2 

e i 

re 0 


5 i~ 
< 0 05 

0/3 0 c 
0 re $ 


15 


o 


05 i! U (L 

re 
0) 


0 

I a? 

0 re 


c re 

E T5 


Q_ 

I- CL 
05 h- 
05 
O c 
O § 
o 2 
c c 
re re 
X O 
I I 

-X .X 
0 0 
0 0 

6 6 

0 0 
>> 
re re 

$ $ 

o o 

< < 


o 

\L> \\J -E 

CL 05 5> 


re 

0 0 2 
£ <i 2 
o o 


05 jS 
O 
I- 


0 

cn 

re 

L_ 

0 

$ 

0 

V) 

L_ 

O 


3 

re 

c 

o 

re 

c 

re 

0 

II 

< 

05 


3 

re 

0 

0 


re 

Q. 

O 

'c 

3 

E 

ii 

< 

3 


0 

> 

"re 

c 

o 

re 

0 

a 

0 
L_ 

I! 

> 

cr 


3 

re 

0 

0 


3 

II 

< 

3 

c 

re 

o. 

c 

0 

E 

re 

0 


0 

CD 

re 

$ 

0 
0 

II 

CL 

I— 

05 2 

s J 

i i 


CO 


November 2015 


2-141 


NUREG-2168 












Affected Environment 


Gloucester County and Salem County are engaged in planning for a regional wastewater 
treatment system that would link to a treatment plant at Carneys Point with a capacity of 
20 Mgd. The new system would allow the two counties to replace the individual septic systems 
that provide service to more rural areas (NRC 2012-TN2499). 

Police, Fire, and Medical Services 

Police protection in the economic impact area is provided by the four county governments and 
the municipalities within them. Table 2-33 presents information on the number of law 
enforcement personnel in each jurisdiction. Salem County has 311 law enforcement personnel, 
including 268 officers and 43 employees. The county itself employs 194 of the personnel, and 
municipalities within the county employ the remaining 117. Cumberland County has 447 law 
enforcement personnel, including 382 officers and 65 civilian employees. A total of 383 of the 
personnel work for municipalities, and the remaining 64 are employed by the county 
government. Gloucester County has 706 law enforcement personnel, including 647 officers and 
59 civilian employees. Municipalities employ 604 of the staff, and the county employs 102. 
There are 1,041 law enforcement personnel in New Castle County, including 836 officers and 
205 civilian employees. The county employs 464 of the personnel, while municipalities employ 
the remaining 577 (USDOJ 2011-TN3111). The 2010 ratios of residents per officer are 246.6 in 
Salem County, 410.7 in Cumberland County, 445.6 in Gloucester County, and 644.1 in New 
Castle County. 

Fire protection in the economic impact area is provided by 97 fire departments with 4,461 
firefighters. Salem County has 19 fire departments with 407 firefighters, Cumberland County 
has 25 departments and 695 firefighters, Gloucester County has 57 departments with 
1,343 firefighters, and New Castle County has 34 departments and 1,740 firefighters. (1) The 
ratios of residents per firefighter are 112.2 in Salem County, 200.2 in Cumberland County, 

212.1 in Gloucester County, and 308.3 in New Castle County. Departments in Wilmington, 
Delaware; Bridgeton, New Jersey; and Bridgeport, New Jersey are staffed by career or mostly 
career (i.e., 51 to 99 percent are career) firefighters, while the remaining departments rely 
mostly or entirely on volunteers (FD 2014-TN3164). 

There are 10 hospitals in the economic impact area with a total of 2,697 hospital beds. 
Cumberland County has one hospital with 331 beds, Gloucester County has two hospitals with 
a combined total of 256 beds, Salem County has two hospitals with a combined total of 
198 beds, and New Castle County has four hospitals with a combined total of 1,171 beds. Of 
the hospitals in New Castle County, one serves only veterans (120 beds) and another is a 
children’s hospital (192 beds) (AHD 2013-TN2306; AHA 2013-TN2305). Salem County officials 
note that Memorial Hospital of Salem County, the closest hospital to the proposed site, has 
significant unused capacity (NRC 2012-TN2499). 


(1) Some stations are substations and do not have separate staff. 


NUREG-2168 


2-142 


November 2015 



Affected Environment 


Table 2-33. Local Law Enforcement Personnel in Counties of the Economic Impact Area 


Jurisdiction 

Total Law Enforcement 
Personnel 

Officers 

Civilians 

New Castle County 

464 

351 

113 

Delaware City 

3 

3 

0 

Elsmere 

12 

11 

1 

Middletown 

31 

27 

4 

Newark 

80 

64 

16 

New Castle 

19 

17 

2 

Newport 

7 

7 

0 

Smyrna 

29 

22 

7 

Wilmington 

396 

334 

62 

Total for New Castle County 

1,041 

836 

205 

Cumberland County 

64 

58 

6 

Bridgeton 

74 

63 

11 

Hopewell Township 

39 

31 

8 

Millville 

89 

77 

12 

Vineland 

181 

153 

28 

Total for Cumberland County 

447 

382 

65 

Gloucester County 

102 

88 

14 

Clayton 

18 

17 

1 

Deptford Township 

72 

67 

5 

East Greenwich Township 

22 

20 

2 

Elk Township 

13 

12 

1 

Franklin Township 

31 

28 

3 

Glassboro 

44 

40 

4 

Greenwich Township 

19 

18 

1 

Harrison Township 

18 

17 

1 

Logan Township 

20 

19 

1 

Mantua Township 

28 

26 

2 

Monroe Township 

73 

66 

7 

Newfield 

6 

6 

0 

Paulsboro 

20 

19 

1 

Pitman 

16 

15 

1 

South Harrison Township 

5 

5 

0 

Washington Township 

87 

80 

7 

Wenonah 

8 

8 

0 

West Deptford Township 

44 

41 

3 

Woodbury 

31 

28 

3 

Woodbury Heights 

8 

7 

1 

Woolwich Township 

21 

20 

1 

Total for Gloucester County 

706 

647 

59 

November 2015 

2-143 


NUREG-2168 




Affected Environment 


Table 2-33. (continued) 


Jurisdiction 

Total Law Enforcement 
Personnel 

Officers 

Civilians 

Salem County 

194 

169 

25 

Carneys Point Township 

25 

20 

5 

Elmer 

2 

2 

0 

Lower Alloways Creek Township 

16 

12 

4 

Penns Grove 

16 

12 

4 

Pennsville Township 

23 

22 

1 

Salem 

25 

22 

3 

Woodstown 

10 

9 

1 

Total for Salem County 

311 

268 

43 

Source: USDOJ 2011-TN3111. 


Social Services 


The New Jersey Department of Health is responsible for social services in the state. All 
counties in the state are required to have public health facilities meeting state standards. 
Cumberland and Salem counties share a joint facility located in Salem City. In addition, 
Cumberland County’s Department of Health is located in Millville. Gloucester County is served 
by a Department of Health and Senior Services in Sewell (NJDOH 2013-TN2391). Each county 
also hosts an office of the New Jersey Department of Human Services that provides financial 
support, transportation, health and wellness support, and other services. In addition, this 
department operates a development center in Cumberland County to provide care and training 
for people with developmental disabilities (NJDHS 2013-TN2392). 

Social services in Delaware are provided by the Department of Health and Social Services. The 
department provides a variety of services through an office in New Castle County, a campus in 
Delaware City providing long-term intermediate care and alcohol and drug rehabilitation, the 
Delaware Psychiatric Center in New Castle, a long-term care facility in Wilmington, a Child 
Support Enforcement facility, and numerous service centers and community mental health 
facilities (DHSS 2013-TN2388). 

Education 

Table 2-34 lists public school districts in the economic impact area along with their enrollments, 
number of teachers, and student-to-teacher ratios. New Castle County has 116 public schools 
in 15 public school districts serving 75,058 students. There are about 14 students per teacher 
in the county, a rate that is slightly better than the statewide rate of 15 students per teacher. 

New Castle County also has 17 charter schools with an enrollment of 6,811 students 
(EducationBug 2014-TN3168). 

In the New Jersey portion of the economic impact area, Cumberland County has 
26,527 students attending 56 public schools in 18 districts, Gloucester County has 
42,352 students in 82 public schools in 30 districts, and Salem County has 11,187 students in 
31 schools in 15 districts. Student-to-teacher ratios for the three counties are 12:1, 13:1, and 
13:1, respectively, all well below the statewide rate of 15:1 (Table 2-34) (Public School 
Review 2014-TN3165) . 


NUREG-2168 


2-144 


November 2015 









Affected Environment 


Table 2-34. Public School Enrollment, Teachers, and Student-to-Teacher Ratios in the 
Economic Impact Area and State 


Public School District 

Number of 
Students (full-time 
equivalents) 

Number of 
Teachers (full¬ 
time equivalents) 

Number of 
Students per 
Teacher 

New Castle County, Delaware 13 * 

76,135 

4,995 

15.24 

State of Delaware* 3 * 

130,610 

8,594 

15.20 

Cumberland County, New Jersey (b * 

27,195 

2,262.6 

12.02 

Gloucester County, New Jersey (b * 

49,079.5 

3,795.2 

12.93 

Salem County, New Jersey* 6 * 

11,225 

999.1 

11.24 

State of New Jersey* 6 * 

1,364,494.5 

94,329.7 

14.47 


(a) Data for 2011 to 2012 school year. 

(b) Data for 2010 to 2011 school year. 

Sources: DDOE 2013-TN2311; DDOE 2013-TN2310; NJDOE 2013-TN2327; NJDOE 2013-TN2328. 


According to public officials in the economic impact area, the public school system in 
Cumberland County is functioning near capacity. The Greenwich, Logan, Woolwich, and 
Paulsboro school districts in Gloucester County and the Appoquinimink district in New Castle 
County are at or over capacity. Local officials in Salem County indicate schools in Elsinboro 
Township and Lower Alloways Creek Township have available capacity (NRC 2012-TN2499). 
New Jersey has a program called the New Jersey Interdistrict Public School Choice Program 
that allows districts to enroll students who may not necessarily reside within the same district. 
This program does not cost parents extra. For the 2014-2015 school year, there were 
136 districts taking part in this program (NJDOE 2014-TN3166). Six districts in Salem County, 
four in Cumberland County, and nine in Gloucester County take part in the program. Delaware 
has a similar program called Delaware School Choice Program that has 193 schools take part 
throughout the state (Delaware 2014-TN3167). 

There are 10 colleges and universities in the economic impact area (CollegeStats 2014- 
TN3109). Salem Community College in Carneys Point is the institution closest to the PSEG 
Site (approximately 15 mi north-northeast). The largest college or university in the economic 
impact area is the University of Delaware, located in Newark, approximately 18 mi northwest of 
the site. 

2.6 Environmental Justice 

Environmental justice requires each Federal agency to identify and address, as appropriate, 
disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects of its programs, 
policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations (59 FR 7629-TN1450). The 
USCB defines minority categories as the following: American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian; 
Native Hawaiian, or other Pacific Islander; Black races; Hispanic ethnicity; and “other,” which 
may be considered a separate minority category. Low income refers to individuals living in 
households meeting the official poverty measure (USCB 2013-TN2363). Executive Order (EO) 
12898 established requirements for environmental justice (59 FR 7629-TN1450). The Council 
on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has provided guidance for addressing environmental justice 
(CEQ 1997-TN452). Although the Commission is not required to comply with EO 12898, the 


November 2015 


2-145 


NUREG-2168 








Affected Environment 


Commission has voluntarily committed to undertake environmental justice reviews. On August 
24, 2004, the Commission issued its policy statement on the treatment of environmental justice 
matters in licensing actions (69 FR 52040-TN1009). 

This section describes the existing demographic and geographic characteristics of the PSEG 
Site and its surrounding communities. It offers a general description of minority and low-income 
populations within a 50-mi region surrounding the site. The characterization in this section 
forms the analytical baseline from which the determination of potential environmental justice 
impacts will be made. The characterization of populations of interest also includes an 
assessment of populations of particular interest or unusual circumstances, such as minority 
communities exceptionally dependent on subsistence resources or identifiable in compact 
locations, such as Native American settlements. 

2.6.1 Methodology 

The review team first examined the geographic distribution of minority and low-income 
populations within 50 mi of the PSEG Site using data from the U.S. Census American 
Community Survey 5-year summary files (2006-2010) to identify minority and low-income 
populations. The review team then verified its analysis by conducting field inquiries of 
numerous agencies and groups (see Appendix B for the list of organizations contacted and 
NRC 2012-TN2499, for the field notes). 

The first step in the review team’s environmental justice review is to examine each census block 
group that is fully or partially included within the 50-mi region to determine whether it should be 
considered a population of interest. Census block groups are the smallest defined area for 
which minority and low-income populations are disaggregated. USCB defines census block 
groups as “statistical divisions of census tracts ... generally defined to contain between 600 and 
3,000 people” (USCB 2013-TN2363). If either of the two criteria discussed below identifies a 
census block group, that census block group is considered a population of interest. The two 
criteria are whether 

• the population of interest exceeds 50 percent of the total population for the block group or 

• the percentage of the population of interest is 20 percentage points (or more) greater than 
the same population’s percentage in the block group’s county. 

The identification of census block groups that meet either of the above criteria is not, in and of 
itself, sufficient for the review team to conclude that disproportionately high and adverse impacts 
would occur. Likewise, the lack of census block groups meeting either of the above criteria 
cannot be construed as conclusive evidence of no disproportionately high and adverse impacts 
to a population of interest. To reach an environmental justice conclusion, the review team must 
investigate all populations in greater detail to determine if there are potentially significant 
environmental impacts that may have disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority or 
low-income communities. To determine whether disproportionately high and adverse effects 
may occur, the review team considers the following: 


NUREG-2168 


2-146 


November 2015 


Affected Environment 


Health Considerations 

1. Are the radiological or other health effects significant or above generally accepted norms? 

2. Is the risk or rate of hazard significant and appreciably in excess of the general population? 

3. Do the radiological or other health effects occur in groups affected by cumulative or multiple 
adverse exposures from environmental hazards? 

Environmental Considerations 

1. Is there an impact on the natural or physical environment that significantly and adversely 
affects a particular group? 

2. Are there any significant adverse impacts on a group that appreciably exceed or are likely to 
appreciably exceed those of the general population? 

3. Do the environmental effects occur in groups affected by cumulative or multiple adverse 
exposure from environmental hazard? (NRC 2007-TN2487). 

If the greater detail investigation does not yield any potential pathways for disproportionately 
high and adverse impacts on populations of interest, the review team may conclude there are 
no disproportionately high and adverse effects. If, however, the review team finds any potential 
pathways for disproportionately high and adverse impacts, the review team would fully 
characterize the nature and extent of those impacts and consider possible mitigation measures 
to lessen those impacts. The remainder of this section discusses the results of the search for 
potentially affected populations of interest. 

Drawing on data presented in Section 2.5.1, this section presents the demographics of the 
minority and low-income populations that reside within a 50-mi radius of the PSEG Site, 
including the economic impact area consisting of Salem, Gloucester, and Cumberland Counties 
in New Jersey, and New Castle County, Delaware. The consideration of a 50-mi comparative 
geographic area surrounding the site is based on guidance provided by NUREG-1555 
(NRC 2000-TN614). 

The review team evaluated all census block groups within the 50-mi region to identify minority and 
low-income populations. In accordance with the threshold criteria described above, the review 
team identified block groups where minority or low-income populations either exceeded 
50 percent of the block group total population or were at least 20 percentage points higher than 
the corresponding population for the county in which the block group was located. Table 2-35 
presents, for the 50-mi region, the percentage of minority category populations in each state and 
the associated threshold values for the second (20 percent) criterion. 

In addition to the minority definitions stated above, the review team also considered Hispanic 
ethnicity in identifying minority populations. According to the USCB, Hispanic ethnicity is not a 
race; therefore, a Hispanic individual can be counted in any of the race categories as well as the 
Hispanic ethnicity category (USCB 2000-TN2488). The review team did not include Hispanic 
ethnicity in its aggregate race estimate because the Federal government considers race and 
Hispanic origin to be two separate and distinct concepts. 


November 2015 


2-147 


NUREG-2168 






Affected Environment 


E 

■ 

o 

in 

d) 

a 


o 

* 4 — 

.TO 

CD 

o 

2 

o 

a 

</> 

0) 


c 

o 

0. 

0) 

05 

O 

+-> 

c 

a) 

a 

a> 

Q- 

O 

CM 

■a 

0) 

4—> 

TO 

'o 

O 

CO 

(/) 

< 

-o 

c 

03 

C/5 

c 

o 

_ro 

o 

a 

o 

CL 

> 


O 

c 


c 

0) 

o 

a) 

CL 

05 

T3 


$ 

0) 


03 


c 

o 


05 
. <15 

co a: 


in 

co 

■ 

CM 

_Q) 

A 

03 


TO 

C 

TO 

> 

> 

(/> 

C 

C 

CD 

CL 


T3 

C 

TO 

TO 


T3 

O 

r- 

c 

O' 

r- 

r^- 

O 

T- 

•O; 


o 

d 

CM 

d 

d 

T— 

(/) 

L_ 

G) 

CO 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

0 

i_ 

A 

*-* 

"5Z 

o 








CO 0 
0 ■*-> 

£S 


c 

O o 

C TO 
0 — 
O ^ 
i- Q. 

0 O 

CL Q_ 


2 c 
o o 
-C -c 

CO 0 

0 4-> 

fS 


^ c 
O o 

■£ 

C TO 
0 — 
O 3 
i- Q. 

0 o 

CL q. 


£ 

O 

05 

0 

+-• 

CG 

o 

> 

4-> 

o 

c 


00 

co 

CM 

o 

CM 

o 


CM 

d 

d 

CO 

d 

d 

CM 


CO 

■m- 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

in 

CM 


03 

•M - 


o 

CM 


03 

CM 


CM 

O 


00 CO 

O O 
CM 


in 

d 


in 

CM 


*r c 

O o 

V. ~ 

"3; 


t"- 

o 

__ 


in 



c TO 

0 — 
o 3 

o 

d 

C\i 

d 

o 

T_ 

d 

CM 

in 

C 

o 

>- Q. 









TO 

0 O 









TO 

CL Q_ 









CL 










o 










Q. 










TO 

T3 - 









O 

- L. 










o o 

A -c 

00 

T— 

CM 

o 

CO 

in 

r^- 


0 

A 

C/3 0 

CM 

d 

CO 

d 

d 

T— 

d 



0 +■> 
^ ‘l- 

CO 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CD 

CO 

E 

o 










* 4 — 










'o 










c 

o § 

♦2 '+3 

00 


CM 

o 

CO 

in 


c- 

TO 

_l 

k_ 

O 

c TO 

CM 

d 

CO 

d 

d 

T— 

d 

r^ 

a 

0 — 







O' 

T— 

O 3 









'c 

!_ Q. 









TO 

0 o 









Q. 

0- CL 









0 










X 










■ 4 —' 










o 

2 c 









c 

o o 

O 

CM 

in 

o 

CM 

CM 

co 

CM 

03 


in o 

CM CM 


o cm m co 

CM CM (D CM 


in o 
in d 


cm cm co 
d cm in 

O' 


CM 

00 


CM O 

co d 


CM 

d 


O N- 

CM ^ 
CO 


CM 

00 


0 

"O 

o c 


o 

03 


c 

TO C 

"O JJ5 
£ w 

TO < 

.y 0 

0 ~ 


TO ^ 

■S-2 £ 

to o 

£ ^ 

TO ° 


E TO 

m < z 


c 

TO 
0 TO 


TO 
Q_ 

0 u- 
> 0 


0 

£ TO 

° % 
TO 


TO 

0 

TO 

03 


0 

E M 

O 3 

O co 2 


o 

P TO 
CL 


03 

03 

< 


C/3 

I 


TO 

0 

t 

o 

CL 

0 


0 

03 

TO 

C 

0 

a 

L_ 

0 

CL 

0 

n 

03 

c 

o 

TO 

s 

ZJ 

0 

>. 

n 

to 

0 

to 

o 

_o 

TO 

O 

0 

0 

o 

TO 


O 

c 

E 

0 

TO 

03 

0 

l__ 

03 

03 


TO 


CO 

CO 

CM 


H 

i 

o 

o 

CM 

CO 

o 

CO 

z> 

0 

o 

l— 

7 

o 

CO 


NUREG-2168 


2-148 


November 2015 










Affected Environment 


Figure 2-24 and Figure 2-25 show the census block groups with minority populations, as defined 
above, within the 50-mi region. There are 4,139 census block groups in the region, of which 
35.3 percent had an “Aggregate Minority" (i.e., all minority groups combined) population that 
exceeded one of the above criteria and 7.0 percent had Hispanic population that exceeded one 
of the above criteria. The most intense concentrations of both Aggregate Minority and Hispanic 
populations in the region occur in Philadelphia and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania; Camden 
County, New Jersey; and New Castle County, Delaware. Most of the block groups exceeding 
the threshold criteria for minority populations do so because of the number of Black residents 
(see Figure 2-26). 

Table 2-36 presents data on census block groups exceeding the environmental justice 
thresholds in the four-county economic impact area. New Castle County, Delaware has the 
largest number of block groups exceeding the thresholds for the Black, Aggregate Minority, and 
Hispanic block categories. Cumberland County, New Jersey has a greater share of block 
groups exceeding the Aggregate Minority and Hispanic criteria than its share of total block 
groups. None of the four counties record any block groups exceeding the threshold criteria for 
the categories of Asian, Other race, or Two or more races. The census block groups closest to 
the PSEG Site that meet the minority population criteria are the three block groups that make up 
the City of Salem, approximately 8 mi north of the site. These block groups exceed the 
thresholds for the Black and Aggregate Minority categories. 

Figure 2-27 shows the census block groups with low-income populations, as defined above, 
within the 50-mi PSEG region. Approximately 12.8 percent of the 4,139 census block groups in 
the region had a low-income population that exceeded one of the above criteria. The greatest 
concentrations of block groups exceeding the low-income criteria are located in Philadelphia 
County, Pennsylvania, and Camden County, New Jersey. 

Within the four-county economic impact area, the data in Table 2-36 show more than half of the 
census block groups with low-income populations exceeding the threshold criteria are located in 
New Castle County, Delaware. In addition, the proportion of such block groups in Cumberland 
County, New Jersey is significantly greater than the county's share of total block groups. The 
closest census block group to the site with a low-income population as defined above is located 
in the southern portion of Salem City, about 8 mi north of the PSEG Site. 

The figures and tables used in this section are modified from the PSEG ER (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280) and additional information provided by PSEG, as referenced. The methods used by 
PSEG and the output of the PSEG analysis have been verified by independent analysis by the 
review team and from the May 7 to 9, 2012 site audit. 


November 2015 


2-149 


NUREG-2168 






Affected Environment 



Chester 


Philadelphia 


amden 


irllngton 


ictavrarc » 


Cfouc **t»r 


Wilmington 


^Ponnsville 

^jSatem 


Cecil 


Salem 


Harford 

Aberdeen-- 
Mavre de GracSs- 
Bel An'/^^ 


Atlantic 


Mirirllctotvn 


Baltin 


wcggton 


, ^ 


Cumberland 


Dover 


CM a: on 
Anne's 


Wildwood- 
NortM Wikhvoc 
Cape May 


Oelaware 

River 


Caroline 


LetMf ton 
Lebanon 

iaupbln 


Hunterdon 


Reading 


Ben It* 


Pctftstown 


Bucks 


Somerset 
WfdtWeswf 
Mercer HlghlSJOwn 

Trenton 


.Won/noutto 


Lancaster 

Lancaster 


Ocean 


York 




"V 


\ Anne • 






&u? 


' « 


• \ + T 


Tsibot 


. 

c 


Chesapeake 
6»» . ~ 

' '"VA 1 

' ^ 

VJ"" ; j 

vv . 


Ca/vert 


_ Oorcbesf#r 




Atlantic 

Ocean 


LEGEND 


it»on 


• 54* lOC$t»< 

J 5Q-m*4* (80 kl>> Co* * r*t h«: R r»Q 
I A:jor©*-jJte c*’ >/non tics Bli>r< Gr:up-. 


Kilr.n«:«rs 


Figure 2-24. Aggregate of Minorities Block Groups Within 50 Mi of the PSEG Site 
(Source: Modified from PSEG 2012-TN2450) 


NUREG-2168 


2-150 


November 2015 










Affected Environment 



Chester 


Philadelphia 


amden 


Delaware 


Gloucester 


Wilminglqr 


Cecil 


Hew 

Castle 


Harford 

Aberdeerv-- 
Havrn <te Grace- 
Bei Air. 


Salerr 


Atlantic 


Middletown 


ineland 


AtUr.’r. 


Cumberland 


Kant 


Dover 


Queen 
Anne 's 


WlldWOOd —J 
North Wildwood' 
Cape May 


Kent 


Carolina 


Lebanon 

Lebanon 

lauphin 


Reading 


Hunterdon 


Berks 


PoltStQWO 


Bucks 


Lancaster 

Lancaster 


Somerset 
Middlesex 
Meter HrgMstown 

Trenton 


Monmouth 


York 


Ocean 


Anne « 




rufac! 


f*ruo 

r 


{ z* 

.Talbot 




Cl JT) A 


^Chesapeake 

Bay /; 

y VrS 

■ 5 ij 


Calvert 


* 

- 


Dorchester 


Atlantic 

Ocean 


LEGEND 

• | Site Locator 

| J M nilc ;8C *.t | Cooccolnc Rno 

I H SOtvti: r _, 'i t. r , R'. - it Cir -;, l ■- 


Kited'e-ters 


Wiles 


Figure 2-25. Hispanic Ethnicity Block Groups Within 50 Mi of the PSEG Site (Source: 
Modified from PSEG 2012-TN2450) 


November 2015 


2-151 


NUREG-2168 















Affected Environment 


o 

TO 

Q. 

E 

o 

E 

o 

c 

o 

o 

LU 

TO 

_C 


</) 

33 

o 

.c 

</3 

CD 

i— 

sz 

\- 

TO 

o 

'4-* 

(/) 

3 


TO 

■*-< 

C 

TO 

E 

c 

o 

1 — 

> 

c 

LU 

CT) 

C 

T3 

TO 

TO 

O 

X 

LU 

(/) 

CL 

3 

O 

k_ 

O 

jx . 

o 

o 

00 

in 

3 

CO 

c 

TO 

O 

>4— 

o 

c 

o 


3 

.0 

k_ 

C/3 

Q 


TO 

TO 


CD 

CO 

1 

CM 

_TO 

jn 

TO 


0 

TO 

0 

0 

I 

I 

I 

0 

O 

0 


O is 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

0 

O 

0 


E 

0 2 

vg O 

^ t- 


T— 





T " 

*“ 


E < 












v«— 










0 0 

O 










LU TO 
— CL 

-X Q. 
TO U -f 


CO 

O 

O 

O 

CO 

O' 

00 


2 E 
0 — 

g 0 8 

i^o 

0 

C- 

O 




CO 

x— 

O' 

O' 


1 - 











z 











o£ 

. 0 0 

7.0 

5.8 

1 

1 

1 

5.5 

2.3 

4.2 


4 - > 

c 0) 

i— 










3 (/> 
O Jr 











O ^ 

2* » 
TO U Jf 










E $ 

TO TO 

CD 

CD 

O 

O 

O 

CD 


CM 


TO Z 
CO 

-2 ° 0 

i“o 

•^r 










Z 










>* 

4-> 

c 

0 « 

03 O 


h- 

O 

1 

1 

1 

6.7 

00 

C~- 

cb 


3 >, 
O TO 

^ h- 

CNJ 

T— 






T_ 


0 £ 











Jr ® 

**- 










2 “> 

0 ^ </) 
TO "0 2" 










TO $ 

TO si 


T— 

O 

O 

O 

T _ 

0 

CO 


O 

* 2 0 

i m o 

CD 

T“ 








CD 

z 










S* 











TO 

»4- — 

n ^ 

CD 

h~ 

| 


I 

s- 

ID 

03 


(/) 

■O 0 
C -5 

-5 0 

h- 

CO 

T— 


1 


1 

CM 

CM 

CD 

O' 

CM 

CM 


TO „ 











k_ $ 











TO TO 

v»- 










JD Z 

° C/> 










1 > 

to 0 =f 

13 O a 

98 

C\1 

O 

O 

O 

37 

20 



(J c 

3 

O 

d — O 

i m <5 










O 

z 










>k 

4-< 

0 

0 

00 

I 

I 

I 

0 

CO 

CO 

CM 

CD 

C 

w M-» 

O O 

<si 

T- 

1 

1 

1 

id 

CM 

CD 

3 

sr ^ 

0 s k— 

m 

N- 




CD 

CO 

LD 

CO 

O TO 

I 









CM 

O {5 










z 

1— 

<D $ 

*4— 









1 

-*-* (T3 
£ ® 

^ ^ Q. 

CD 

o- 

O 

O 

O 

CD 

CO 

h- 

CM 

O 

TO O 2" 

CD 

N- 




O 

CM 

CM 

CM 

0 Q 

go? 

CO 





T ~ 



00 

S 

TO 

i“<5 









O 

CO 

z 

z 









3 











T-" 











CD 











CO 



CO 








CM 



Ql 








z 



3 








h- 



O 








0 



L_ 




C/3 







O 




CD 




0 



2* 

O 

O 




O 

TO 

i_ 

V— 

0 

c 



CM 

CD 



S-/ 

25 




TO 



TO 

O 

CO 



o\ 



CD 

b 

TO 


E 

3 



0 

V— 

CD 



O 

TO 

L_ 

E 

k_ 

TO 

CD 

O 

'c 

0 

0 

£2 

i f i 

TO 

O 

l_ 

D 



.O 

E 

0 

TO 

C 

TO 

k_ 

CD 

JT 

0 

0 

TO 

k_ 

CD 

TO 

CL 

C/3 

£ 



3 

C/3 


$ 

CD 


0 

O 



z 

CD 

< 

O 


< 

if 

_J 

CO 


2-152 


NUREG-2168 


November 2015 







Affected Environment 



Trenton 


Bucks 


Philadelphia 


Burtngmn 


Wilmington 


Hjrfora 


Middletown 


Kenr 


Queen 
Anne 's 


ridei 

^ 4 


Kenr 


?\ V r raioor 


Huhienlon 


Lebanon 

Leoanon 


Reading 


Bent* 


Potts town 


So/nerse/ 

MNMWUI 
Mencet hUghtstown 


LEGEND 

• ) Site Location 

^ 50-m*e (80 kmj Concentric King 
■ Brack Mnonty Bock Groups 


A , Jp I 


10 20 

0 5 10 


Figure 2-26. Black Minority Block Groups Within 50 Mi of the PSEG Site (Source: 
Modified from PSEG 2012-TN2450) 


November 2015 


2-153 


NUREG-2168 











Affected Environment 



C be star 


Philadelphia 


Camden 




Gloucester 


Wilmington 


New 

Cestl* 


Saiem 


Harford 

Aberdeen- 
Navte de Grace 
Bel Air 


^Salsrn 


Atlantic 


Middlet-orm 


Vineland 


H^ndgeton 


Sa.'trrr )”> 


Atlantic 


Cumberland 


Kant 


Baltimore 


Dover 


Queen 

Anna's 


’•Yiklvraad-y 
Nolh Wild* J 00 - 
CBpe Way 


Kent 


Caroline 


Hunterdon 


Lebanon 

Lebanon 


auphm 


Readng 


Berks 


PotHtown 


Bucks 


Somerset 
Middlesex 
Mercer Hightstown 

Trenton 


Monmouth 


Lancosttn 

Lancaster 


OCMfl 


York 






Awe 


’'*’An;rjtk! 


vv ,T » 


Chesapeake 


SK 

Y A Talbot 


>ape«*e •, * u 

Bav ,‘T. XJL J 

:t ^ 




Calvert 


Dorchester 




Atlantic 

Ocean 


LEGEND 

• I Site -coaticn 

T SO-niil? 1 80 kri C'jncc'rlriC Rny 
■ Loa- income I ♦c*.i%rh::lG bl:;«:k Gxiiipr. 


KikiPHit*r-» 


"ri 


Figure 2-27. Low-Income Household Block Groups Within 50 Mi of the PSEG Site 
(Source: Modified from PSEG 2012-TN2450) 


NUREG-2168 


2-154 


November 2015 










Affected Environment 


2.6.2 Scoping and Outreach 

NRC staff issued advance notice of public EIS scoping meetings in accordance with 
Commission guidance and conducted two public scoping meetings in Carneys Point, Salem 
County, New Jersey on November 4, 2010. Also, from May 7 to 9, 2012, members of the 
review team met with elected officials of each county in the economic impact area as well as 
mayors of townships in the immediate vicinity of the PSEG Site. One purpose of these 
meetings was to identify and assess the potential for disproportionately high and adverse effects 
on minority and low-income populations. Through these meetings, the review team did not 
identify any additional groups of minority or low-income populations that might be affected by 
the proposed project. 

2.6.3 Special Circumstances of the Minority and Low-Income Populations 

The NRC environmental justice methodology includes an assessment of "pockets” of 
populations that have unique characteristics that may not be discerned by the census but might 
receive a disproportionately high and adverse impact from building and operation of a project. 
Examples of unique characteristics might include lack of vehicles, sensitivity to noise, close 
proximity to the plant, or subsistence activities, but such unique characteristics need to be 
demonstrably present in the population and relevant to the potential effects of the plant. If the 
impacts from the proposed action could affect an identified minority or low-income population 
more than the general population because of one of these or other unique characteristics, then 
a determination is made whether the impact on the minority or low-income population is 
disproportionately high and adverse when compared to the general population. 

2.6.3.1 High-Density Communities 

High-density communities are minority or low-income "pockets” of populations that are not 
discerned by the census but might suffer a disproportionately high and adverse impact from 
building or operation of a project. Examples include densely populated low-income housing 
projects such as public housing or U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development rental 
assistance. 

Salem County has five public housing projects, two in Penns Grove (approximately 12 mi from 
the site) and three in Salem City (approximately 8 mi from the site) (Salem County 2010- 
TN2486). There are none in the communities closest to the PSEG Site (Elsinboro and Lower 
Alloways Creek Townships). The review team identified no other high-density communities. 

2.6.3.2 Subsistence 

The review team also thoroughly searches for populations that may have common subsistence 
behaviors including gardening, gathering plants, fishing, and hunting. These behaviors are 
used to supplement store-bought foodstuffs or medications for budgetary purposes or for 
ceremonial and traditional cultural purposes. Subsistence information is typically site-specific, 
and the review team must take care to differentiate between subsistence and recreational uses 
of natural resources. The review team relied on a study conducted for PSEG that reports on 
interviews with local government officials, staff of social welfare agencies, and community- 
based aid programs concerning subsistence living near the PSEG Site (PSEG 2012-TN2370). 


November 2015 


2-155 


NUREG-2168 


Affected Environment 


According to the study, these interviews “identified no unusual resource dependencies or 
practices such as subsistence agriculture, hunting, or fishing.” The results of this study were 
independently verified between May 7 and 9, 2012, by interviews conducted by the review team 
with local officials reporting that gardening, hunting, and fishing were practiced for their 
recreational value rather than as subsistence activities. 

Through its review of the PSEG ER (PSEG 2015-TN4280), its own outreach and research, and 
scoping comments, the review team did not identify any communities with unique characteristics 
that would require further consideration. 

2.6.4 Migrant Populations 

The USCB defines a migrant laborer as someone who works seasonally or temporarily and 
moves one or more times per year to perform seasonal or temporary work. Section 2.5.1.3 
discusses the two largest migrant populations within the economic impact area: those 
associated with outages at HCGS and SGS and those associated with agricultural activities in 
the area. That discussion finds that (1) up to 1,361 workers come to the area every 6 months to 
perform refueling and maintenance at the existing nuclear plants and (2) 4,209 farm workers are 
employed in the economic impact area for less than 150 days per year, some or all of whom 
may be migrant workers. Local officials indicate migrant agricultural workers are employed 
seasonally in Cumberland County (residing primarily in the Bridgeton area) and in Gloucester 
County. An official of the township where the PSEG Site is located indicates no migrant farm 
laborers are employed in the township (NRC 2012-TN2499). 

2.6.5 Environmental Justice Summary 

As discussed above, the review team found that 35.3 percent of the census block groups in the 
50-mi PSEG region had an Aggregate Minority population that exceeded one of the criteria 
established for environmental justice analyses and that 7.0 percent had a Hispanic population 
that exceeded one of the criteria. The review team found that 12.8 percent of the census block 
groups in the region had a low-income population that exceeded one of the criteria. 

The review team found that, within the four-county economic impact area, more than half of the 
block groups with Aggregate Minority, Hispanic, or low-income populations exceeding the 
environmental justice thresholds were located in New Castle County, Delaware. The block 
groups nearest to the PSEG Site with populations exceeding the criteria are located within the 
City of Salem, approximately 8 mi north of the site. These block groups were over the 
thresholds for Black, Aggregate Minority, and low-income populations. 

The review team performed analyses in greater detail before making a final environmental 
justice determination. These analyses can be found in Chapter 4 for building-related activities 
and in Chapter 5 for project operations. 

2.7 Historic and Cultural Resources 

Historic and cultural resources refer to archaeological sites, historic buildings, shipwrecks, and 
other resources considered through the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (54 USC 
300101 et seq. -TN4157) of 1966, as amended. The process for considering these resources 


NUREG-2168 


2-156 


November 2015 


Affected Environment 


during a Federal undertaking is identified in Section 106 of the NHPA (36 CFR Part 800- 
TN513). In accordance with Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 800.8(c), the 
NRC and the USACE have elected to use the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 
amended (NEPA) (42 USC 4321 et seq. -TN661) process to comply with NHPA. As a 
cooperating agency, the USACE is part of the review team. The USACE and the NRC each 
have their own areas of regulatory responsibility and are consulting on the areas of the project 
that are within their regulatory authority. Because of the limited regulatory authority of each 
agency, neither agency could consult on the entire project. The NRC is consulting on the 
impact (including visual impacts) of construction and operation of a new nuclear power plant on 
Artificial Island. The USACE is consulting on areas of the project that would impact wetlands, 
specifically the proposed causeway from Money Island Road to the PSEG Site and potential 
dredge areas (barge facility and water intake). 

The USACE regulations at 33 CFR Part 325, Appendix C (TN425), describe the USACE 
obligation to comply with the regulations of NHPA (36 CFR Part 800-TN513). The USACE 
utilizes the term "permit area” to describe the areas within their regulatory responsibilities. In 
addition to any specific conditions regarding known historic and cultural resources identified 
through coordination with the State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) and Tribal Historic 
Preservation Offices (THPOs), every USACE DA permit includes a general condition that 
advises and requires the permittee to immediately notify the USACE if any previously unknown 
resources are encountered during construction. 

The NRC has determined that the direct, physical area of potential effect (APE) within its 
authority for this review is the area at the PSEG Site on Artificial Island and its immediate 
environs that may be impacted by activities associated with building and operating a new 
nuclear power plant (Figure 2-28). The indirect APE that encompasses potential visual impacts 
for this review is located within the PSEG Site vicinity and is defined as a zone within 4.9 mi of 
the tallest structures associated with a new nuclear power plant. The USACE permit areas are 
the Money Island Access Road and the dredge area (Figure 2-28 and Figure 2-29, 
respectively). 

For the purposes of NHPA Section 106 review, the NRC and the USACE conducted 
consultation with the New Jersey and Delaware SHPOs, appropriate THPOs, Advisory Council 
on Historic Preservation (ACHP), NPS, interested parties, and PSEG for onsite and offsite 
activities. 

Consultation efforts are described in Section 2.7.3. Additional information on consultation is 
also located in Appendices C and F. Assessments of effects from construction are provided in 
Section 4.6; associated assessments relative to operations are provided in Section 5.6. 
Cumulative effects are discussed in Section 7.5. 


November 2015 


2-157 


NUREG-2168 







Affected Environment 



LEGEND: 

• USACE Permit Area 

□ NRC APE 

CZ3 USACE Permit Area 

C2 S mile (9.7-km) Vicinity Boundary 

□ Farmland Project Area 3 



Figure 2-28. The USACE Permit Area and NRC Direct Area of Potential Effect for Section 
106 review (Source: Modified from PSEG 2015-TN4280) 


NUREG-2168 


2-158 


November 2015 
















Affected Environment 



Figure 2-29. Underwater Portion of the USACE Permit Area (Source: PCI 2009-TN2544) 
2.7.1 Cultural Background 

This section provides an overview of the historic and cultural background of the PSEG Site and 
region, including the identification of historic properties and cultural resources within the APEs. 
The PSEG Site is located in Lower Alloways Creek Township, one of the nine townships in 
Salem County. The proposed project area is located on Artificial Island, an island created by 
the USACE early in the 20th century. The island is an amalgamation of highly disturbed 
hydraulic dredge spoils. The PSEG Site is adjacent to the existing HCGS/SGS site on Artificial 
Island. A small portion of the north end of Artificial Island is within the State of Delaware. 

2. 7.7.7 Paleo-lndian Period 

The first conclusive evidence of people in North America is associated with the Paleo-lndian 
Period, which dates from about 12000 BC to 8000 BC. This was a period of major climatic 
changes as the glacial conditions that persisted during the last age abated (ASNJ 2013- 
TN2399). Climatic conditions in New Jersey during this period would have been much cooler 
and wetter than today. Tundra and spruce/pine vegetation would have predominated 
(Chesler 1982-TN2398). During this period, ocean levels were lower due to the large amounts 
of water trapped in the ice sheets that covered North America; therefore, New Jersey’s 
coastlines were further out on the continental shelf than they are today. Paleo-lndian cultures 
are identified by the large fluted points associated with the Clovis culture that are found 
throughout North America, including New Jersey. As the climate moderated toward the end of 


November 2015 


2-159 


NUREG-2168 








Affected Environment 


this period, people adapted their behavior to accommodate increasing population pressure, 
which resulted in more intensive use of game and plant life. 

2.7.1.2 A rchaic Period 

The Archaic Period covers the 7,000-year period between about 8000 BC and about 1000 BC. 
Due to the extensive amount of time covered by the Archaic Period, it is often refined into the 
Early Archaic Period (around 8000 to 6500 BC), the Middle Archaic Period (around 6500 to 
4000 BC), and the Late Archaic Period (4000 to 1000 BC). The division between the Early, 
Middle, and Late archaic periods is partially demarcated through changing spear and dart point 
styles. The environment during the Early Archaic was still transitioning away from the glacial 
conditions that previously existed. Glacial features such as frost thaw basins and pingos 
(upthrusts of ice and earth) still were found on the landscape and were used by early archaic 
peoples (ASNJ 2013-TN2399). In the Middle Archaic Period, temperatures continued to 
increase and the sea level rose accordingly. It is assumed that many of the coastal camps used 
by earlier peoples (Paleo-lndian and Early Archaic peoples) were inundated by the rising ocean 
during this period (ASNJ 2013-TN2399). Middle Archaic sites in New Jersey show evidence of 
more intensive use of food sources (ASNJ 2013-TN2399). The first evidence of use of an atlatl 
(a spear or dart thrower that increased the velocity of projectiles) appears during the Middle 
Archaic. By the Late Archaic Period (4000 to 1000 BC) environmental conditions became 
similar to modern conditions. The intensification of the use of food sources continued 
throughout this period and, presumably, population pressures also increased (ASNJ 2013- 
TN2399). Stones for grinding nuts are found in sites dating to this period. There is also 
evidence of seasonal exploitation of resources. 

2.7.1.3 Woodland Period 

The Woodland Period (1000 BC to AD 1000) is usually defined by the introduction of pottery 
and the bow and arrow, along with the first evidence of horticulture. This 2,000-year period is 
also commonly divided by archaeologists into an Early (1000 BC to AD 1), Middle (AD 1 to 
1000) and Late Woodland Period (AD 1000 to 1600). The Early Woodland Period is defined by 
the introduction of pottery. This period is characterized mainly by changes in pottery styles and 
projectile point styles (Mounier 2003-TN2716). The Middle Woodland is not well represented in 
New Jersey. An increase in permanent settlements occurred during the Late Woodland Period. 
Pottery styles become more localized, and cache pits for storing food are used more heavily 
(Mounier 2003-TN2716). Decorated pottery and ceramic pipes also are associated with Late 
Woodland sites. The Late Woodland Period ends with the coming of Europeans to North 
America. 

2.7.1.4 Contact Period 

The Contact Period refers to when Europeans first arrived and interacted with Native American 
populations. New Jersey was first seen by Europeans sailing along the coast. In 1524, 

Giovanni da Verrazzano sailed past what would become New Jersey (Chesler 1982-TN2398). 
The local population at the time of contact was composed of Algonquian-speaking people called 
the Lenape (also known as the Delaware) by Europeans (Veit 2002-TN2715). Verrazzano was 
followed in 1609 by Henry Hudson, who was exploring the area on behalf of the Dutch. The 


NUREG-2168 


2-160 


November 2015 




Affected Environment 


Dutch established a post at New Amsterdam (present-day New York City) in the 1610s. The 
first permanent European settlements in New Jersey were established by the Dutch in the 
1620s. 

2.7. 7.5 Historic Period 

The Dutch, Swedes, and English all laid claim to the Delaware River; however, it was the 
English who eventually gained control. The colony of New Jersey was established in 1664. 

The colony was founded on principles of religious tolerance. Many of the earliest settlers in the 
colony were members of the Society of Friends, also known as Quakers. New Jersey was 
primarily a rural colony composed of agricultural communities (New Jersey 2013-TN2718). 

During the American Revolution of the 1770s, New Jersey was a key location with more than 
100 battles being fought in the state. After the war, New Jersey became the third state in the 
union in 1787. New Jersey became an industrial center with textiles, clay products, and iron 
and steel as the major industries (New Jersey 2013-TN2718). During the American Civil War, 
New Jersey fought to preserve the Union. After the war, the state continued on its course of 
industrialization. Immigration and industrialization led to issues of worker rights and inspired the 
election of progressive politicians, such as Woodrow Wilson, who was elected governor of New 
Jersey in 1910 and president of the United States in 1913. The Great Depression of the 1930s 
significantly affected the industrial base in New Jersey. However, during World War II the 
economy rallied with expansions in the electronics and chemical industries (New Jersey 2013- 
TN2718). 

Salem County is located in the southwestern portion of the state and is bordered by the 
Delaware River on the west. Most of the land along the Delaware River is low tidal marshland. 
Some of the earliest European settlements in New Jersey were in Salem County because the 
county controlled the Delaware River. Fort Elfsborg was established by Swedish settlers south 
of the town of Salem in 1642 (Harrison 1988-TN2714). English control of the area was solidified 
in the 1660s to 1670s. The economy of Salem County revolved around timber, agriculture, and 
the shipping of materials between Philadelphia and New York. Salt hay was a major commodity 
for the region, where residents relied on the extensive system of meadow banks and dykes that 
made farming of the marshlands possible. Many of the patterned brick homes found in the 
region were constructed during these early agriculturally focused years. Glass works centered 
in Wistarburg were established in 1739 as one of the earliest industrial ventures in the region. 
These basic components of the local economy remained relatively uniform until the Americans 
introduced railroads into the area during the 1830s. At that point, the industrial presence in the 
region expanded. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, manufacturing, agriculture, and 
canning developed into the mainstays of the local economy. World War II saw a marked 
increase in chemical plants in southern New Jersey. The local economy remained consistent 
until the construction of the PSEG nuclear power plant in 1985 (Harrison 1988-TN2714). 

2.7.2 Historic and Cultural Resources at the PSEG Site and Offsite Areas 

The information presented in this section was collected from area repositories, the New Jersey 
SHPO, the New Jersey State Museum (NJSM), the Delaware SHPO, and the PSEG ER (PSEG 
2015-TN4280). Historic properties (resources eligible or potentially eligible for nomination to the 


November 2015 


2-161 


NUREG-2168 


Affected Environment 


NRHP) and other cultural resources identified as a result of these efforts are included in the 
discussion. 

To identify the historic and cultural resources at the PSEG Site and the associated offsite areas, 
the staff reviewed the following information. 

• PSEG Early Site Permit Application; Part 3, Environmental Report (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

• Historic Properties Visual Impact Assessment, PSEG Early Site Permit Application, Salem 
County, New Jersey, MACTEC Engineering and Consulting Inc., Dec. 2009, ML12290A159 
(MACTEC 2009-TN2543). 

• Draft Addendum to Historic Properties Visual Impact Assessment, PSEG Early Site Permit 
Application, Salem County, New Jersey, AKRF 2012, ML13310A546 (AKRF 2012-TN2876). 

• Report of Phase / Archaeological Survey for Selected Portions of Two Proposed Access 
Road Alternatives, PSEG Early Site Permit Application, Salem County, New Jersey 
[Redacted], MACTEC Engineering and Consulting Inc., August 2009, ML12290A151 (PSEG 
2009-TN2550). 

• Report of Phase I Archaeological Survey for Selected Portions of Two Access Road 
Alternatives, PSEG Early Site Permit Application, Salem County, New Jersey [Redacted], 
MACTEC Engineering and Consulting Inc., December 2009, ML101660320 (PSEG 2009- 
TN4370). 

• New Jersey’s Archaeological Resources, accessed on April 12, 2012. Available at 
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/hpo/1 identify/arkeo_res.htm (Chesler 1982-TN2398). 

• Submerged Cultural Resources Survey of a Proposed Barge Facility and Water Intake, 
PSEG Early Site Permit Environmental Review Delaware River, Salem County, New Jersey, 
Panamerican Consultants, Inc., December 2009, ML12290A158 (PCI 2009-TN2544). 

• NJAS (New Jersey Archaeological Society). 2013. New Jersey Archaeological Timeline. 
Available at http://www.asnj.Org/p/resources.html (ASNJ 2013-TN2399). 

• NRHP (National Register of Historic Places). 2013. National Register of Historic Places 
listings for Salem County, New Jersey. Available at 

http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/nj/Salem/state.html (NPS 2013-TN2400). 

• Archaeological Investigation and Evaluation Sites 28SA 7 79, 28SA180, 28SA182, and 
28SA186, PSEG Early Site Permit Application for Salem County, New Jersey [Redacted], 
AKRF April 2013, ML13252A317 (AKRF 2013-TN2653). 

• Submerged Cultural Resources Phase II Investigation of Three Anomaly Cluster Targets 
Located Within a Proposed Barge Facility and Water Intake Area, Delaware River, Salem 
County, New Jersey, February 2013, ML13252A319 (PCI 2013-TN2749). 

• AKRF (AKRF Inc.), 2011, Field Verification of Key Resources at PSEG Alternatives Sites 
[Redacted], prepared for PSEG, April 25, ML12166A391 (AKRF 2011-TN2869). 

Because of the limits placed on the agencies by their regulatory authorities, each agency is 
responsible for a distinct APE. The APE for the NRC consists of the PSEG Site on Artificial 
Island, which would be the location of a new nuclear power plant, and the area affected by the 


NUREG-2168 


2-162 


November 2015 






Affected Environment 


visual impact of a new plant. The USACE permit area is that area that would be affected by the 
proposed causeway from Money Island Road to the PSEG Site and the area affected by 
dredging the Delaware River. 

NJSM houses the archaeological site files for the State, and the New Jersey SHPO houses 
information on historic resources such as buildings and houses, including information 
concerning the National or State Register eligibility status of these resources. Online sources 
were used to identify properties listed in the NRHP in Salem County, New Jersey and New 
Castle County, Delaware (NPS 2013-TN2400). 

A total of 23 properties are listed on the NRHP in Salem County, New Jersey. The closest 
property to the PSEG Site is the Joseph Ware House, 3.54 mi to the northeast of the site. 

2.7.2 .7 NRC Area of Potential Effect 

Artificial Island 

Artificial Island is a 1,500-ac island created by the USACE beginning in the early 20th century. 
The island began as buildup of hydraulic dredge spoils within a progressively enlarged diked 
area established around a natural sandbar that projected into the river (NRC 2011-TN3131). 

A review of NJSM files shows that there are no previously recorded archaeological or above 
ground historic architectural resources identified on the PSEG Site. Because of the use of 
hydraulic fill to construct the island, intact archaeological deposits are considered unlikely 
within the fill material. PSEG reviewed the soil borings collected as part of a geotechnical 
investigation of the PSEG Site to determine if intact prehistoric soils were buried during the 
construction of Artificial Island. The soil borings reveal a soil stratigraphy consisting of 
40 to 50 ft of hydraulic fill material overlying a rocky streambed deposit. The PSEG soil borings 
revealed no evidence to support the presence of buried prehistoric soils underneath Artificial 
Island (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Based on the lack of evidence for paleosols and the use of 
historic era hydraulic dredge spoils to construct the island, the staff determined that there is no 
potential for intact archaeological material to be present on the PSEG Site. Therefore, the staff 
determined that there is no effect for the Artificial Island APE because there are no NRHP listed 
or eligible historic properties on Artificial Island. 

Visual Resource Review from the Plant Structures 

The NRC evaluated and consulted under Section 106 of the NHPA with the New Jersey 
and Delaware SHPOs on the impacts of the existing SGS and HCGS in the final environmental 
impact statement for license renewal for SGS and HCGS (NRC 2011-TN3131). The tallest 
structure on Artificial Island is the 514-ft-tall HCGS natural draft cooling tower (NDCT), which 
can be seen from many miles away (particularly the cooling tower and the plume it produces). 
The existing HCGS/SGS complex can easily be seen from the marsh areas and the river itself, 
while in the more populated areas, it is often blocked by trees or houses and can be seen only 
from certain angles. In NUREG-1437 Supplement 45 for license renewal for SGS and HCGS, 
consultation resulted in a determination of no adverse effect to any property listed on or eligible 
for listing on the NRHP (NRC 2011-TN3131). 


November 2015 


2-163 


NUREG-2168 



Affected Environment 


The NRC evaluated the visual impact analysis performed by PSEG for the ESP application. 

The analysis was aided by using the cooling tower for the existing HCGS. The PPE value for 
the height of the proposed cooling towers (590 ft) is higher than the existing tower (514 ft). 

PSEG conducted two visual impact assessments for the project, and the applicable reports 
have been submitted to the New Jersey and Delaware SHPOs (MACTEC 2009-TN2543; 

AKRF 2012-TN2876). The assessments focused on NRHP-listed or eligible properties within 
4.9 mi of the site and from which the PSEG Site would be visible. The visual impact analysis 
identified several historic properties located in the vicinity of the PSEG Site that have the 
potential to be visually affected by building and operating a new nuclear power plant at the site, 
including six NRHP-listed or eligible architectural resources in New Jersey and 18 in Delaware 
(see Table 2-37) (AKRF 2012-TN2876). Two potentially eligible resources were identified in 
New Jersey, and one was noted in Delaware (AKRF 2012-TN2876). Most of the resources 
identified were historic houses; however, the cooling tower on the PSEG Site would be visible 
from two historic districts in Delaware (Port Penn and Ashton historic districts). Additionally, 
one of the resources identified, the Abel and Mary Nicholson House in New Jersey, has 
National Historic Landmark (NHL) status. 

2. 7. 2.2 USA CE Permit Area 

Money Island Access Road 

The permit area for the Money Island access road was defined in a memorandum dated 
February 5, 2015 (USACE 2015-TN4340). The permit area is 50 feet wide (25 ft on either side 
of the centerline) and extends along Money Island Road to Mason Point Road, a distance of 
0.7 mi. The closest NRHP listed property to the proposed causeway is the Abel and Mary 
Nicholson House, less than 1 mi from the northern terminus of the causeway. The closest listed 
property in New Castle County, Delaware is the Augustine Beach Hotel, 3 mi northwest of the 
project area. 

The Phase I archaeological survey conducted by the applicant on portions of the proposed 
causeway (that are outside the salt marsh) identified six archaeological sites: 28SA179, 
28SA180, 28SA181,28SA182, 28SA183, and 28SA186 (PSEG 2009-TN2550). Sites 
28SA179, 28SA180, 28SA181, 28SA182, and 28SA183 are all multicomponent sites containing 
both prehistoric material dating to the ArchaicA/Voodland Period and historic material dating to 
the 18th and 19th centuries. Site 28SA186 contains material only from the 18th and 19th 
centuries. The New Jersey Historic Preservation Officer stated the following in response to 
scoping comments: “If avoidance is not possible, Phase II archaeological survey will be 
necessary for each site to assess their eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic 
Places” (See Appendix D). 

The applicant conducted the Phase II survey and submitted it to the New Jersey SHPO 
(AKRF 2013-TN2653). The Phase II survey found that the limited portions of Sites 28SA179, 
28SA180, 28SA182, and 28SA186 that could be affected by the proposed improvements to 
Money Island Road did not appear to possess sufficient integrity or significance to be 
considered individually eligible for the State or NRHP or to be considered eligible as contributing 
resources to either the Elsinboro-Lower Alloway Creek Rural Agricultural District or the John 
Mason House. The New Jersey SHPO recommends that additional work is necessary for a 
determination to be made (NJDEP 2013-TN2742). 


NUREG-2168 


2-164 


November 2015 






Affected Environment 


The visual impact on the Abel and Mary Nicholson House from the Money Island access road 
was evaluated. The applicant found that no visual impacts would result from the project to the 
Abel and Mary Nicholson House (AKRF 2012-TN2542). However, consultation among the 
USACE, the New Jersey SHPO, and PSEG is ongoing to determine the effects of the Money 
Island access road on historic properties. 


Table 2-37. Historic Properties within the 4.9-mi Area of Potential Effect that are Visible 
from the PSEG Site 


State 

Property Name 

Address 

National 
Register of 
Historic 
Places Status 

New Jersey 


Samuel Union/Yerkes 
Farmstead 

Lighthouse Road, Supawna National 

Wildlife Refuge 

Eligible 


Nathaniel Chambless House 

Alloway Creek Neck Road 

Listed 


Ware-Shourds House 

134 Poplar Street 

Listed 


Abel and Mary Nicholson 

House 

Junction of Hancock Bridge and Fort 

Elfsborg Road 

Listed, NHL 


Benjamin Holmes House 

West of Salem on 410 Fort Elfsborg Road 

Listed 


John Mason House 

63 Money Island Road 

Eligible 


John Maddox Denn House 

112 Poplar Street 

Eligible 


349 Fort Elfsborg Road House 

349 Fort Elfsborg Road 

Eligible 

Delaware 


Short’s Landing Hotel Complex 

6180 Fleming Island Road, Northeast of 
Smyrna 

Listed 


Port Penn Historic District 

DE 9 

Listed 


Liston Range Front Lighthouse 

1600 Belts Road, Bay View Beach 

Listed 


Augustine Beach Hotel 

South of Port Penn on DE 9 

Listed 


Reedy Island Range Rear 

Light 

Junction of DE 9 and Road 453 

Listed 


Ashton Historic District 

North of Port Penn on Thornton Road, Port 
Penn 

Listed 


Higgins Farm 

Rt. 423, Oddessa 

Listed 


Robert Grose House 

1000 Port Penn Road, Port Penn 

Listed 


Dilworth House 

Off DE 9, Port Penn 

Listed 


Commander Thomas 
MacDonough House 

North of Odessa on US 13, Odessa 

Listed 


Hill Island Farm 

3379 DuPont Parkway (US 13) 

Listed 


Hart House 

East of Taylors Bridge on DE 453, Taylors 
Bridge 

Listed 


Johnson Home Farm 

CR 453 East of junction with DE 9 

Listed 


Liston House 

East of Taylors Bridge on DE 453 

Listed 


9 West Market 

9 West Market Street, Port Penn 

Eligible 


Elmer Bender House 

7 West Market Street, Port Penn 

Eligible 


Charles Hickman Dwelling 
Complex 

5 West Market Street. Port Penn 

Eligible 


David Corbit House 

3 West Market Street, Port Penn 

Eligible 


Riverdale 

Off Bay View and Silver Run Rds., Odessa 

Listed 


50 Cedar Swamp Road House 

50 Cedar Swamp Road 

Potential 


November 2015 


2-165 


NUREG-2168 






Affected Environment 


Dredging Area 

A Phase I survey was conducted in the submerged area off of Artificial Island that could be 
affected by dredging activities for the barge facility and the water intake area (PCI 2009- 
TN2544). This survey identified three locations that may represent shipwrecks. At the reguest 
of the New Jersey SHPO, the applicant conducted a Phase II survey and determined the 
material appears to be modern debris and of no historical significance (PCI 2013-TN2749). The 
New Jersey SHPO concurred by letter dated October 28, 2013 (NJDEP 2013-TN2742) (see 
Appendix C). The USACE has yet to issue its determination. Consultation with the USACE is 
ongoing. 

2.7.3 Consultation 

In October 2010, the NRC initiated consultation with the New Jersey and Delaware SHPOs, the 
ACHP, and the Native American tribes listed below. The letters informed the consulting parties 
that the NRC is coordinating compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA through NEPA. No 
Federally recognized tribes are located within the state of New Jersey. However, New Jersey 
and Delaware maintain lists of Tribal groups that have an interest in the region. In 
acknowledgement of their interest in the region, the NRC has contacted the Cherokee Nation of 
New Jersey, the Ramapough Mountain Indians, The Delaware Nation, the Taino Tribal Council 
of Jatibonicu, the Powhatan Renape Nation, the Nanticoke Tribe Association, the Nanticoke 
Lenni-Lenape Indians of New Jersey, the Eastern Lenape Nation of Pennsylvania, the Eastern 
Delaware Nation, and Delaware Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma. All letters are presented in 
Appendix F. No responses to these letters were received from the Native American tribes. 

The NRC conducted a public scoping meeting at Salem Community College in Carneys Point, 
New Jersey, on November 4, 2010. A comment was received regarding the new access road 
affecting the viewshed of the historic 1722 Abel and Mary Nicholson pattern brick house. The 
Swedish Colonial Society commented that it was their intention to discover the location of Fort 
Elfsborg, which had once stood in southern New Jersey along the Delaware River. Although the 
society stated that it does not appear that the Mill Creek area, where it is believed Fort Elfsborg 
was located, will be affected, the society requested a Phase 1 survey of the area to ensure that 
the Fort Elfsborg historical site is not impacted, compromised, or obliterated. The Mill Creek 
area where the society believes Fort Elfsborg is located is west of Money Island Road. Those 
portions of Money Island Road that would be affected by the project were investigated during 
the archaeological survey conducted for that portion of the project. No evidence of Fort Elfsborg 
was discovered during the archaeological survey. 

The New Jersey SHPO provided a comment during scoping that it was currently in consultation 
with the NRC and other interested parties, pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic 
Preservation Act (54 USC 300101 et seq. -TN4157). The NRC also consulted with the 
Delaware SHPO. As discussed in the visual assessment section above, the applicant 
conducted two visual assessments. The Delaware SHPO reviewed the reports and issued a 
finding of “no adverse effect” for the PSEG ESP project on any properties listed on or eligible for 
listing on the NRHP (DDHCA 2013-TN2639) (see Appendix C). Consultation is completed with 
the Delaware SHPO. The New Jersey SHPO concurred that there will be no effects to historic 
properties from dredging in the Delaware River from the project (NJDEP 2013-TN2742). 


NUREG-2168 


2-166 


November 2015 





Affected Environment 


Likewise, the New Jersey SHPO concurred that there would be no adverse effects to historic 
properties from the PSEG ESP (NJDEP 2013-TN2870). Consultation between the NRC and the 
New Jersey SHPO was completed when the memorandum of agreement (MOA) was executed 
between the consulting parties on October 14, 2015 (NRC 2015-TN4377). A copy of the final 
MOA is provided within Appendix F. Consultation between the New Jersey SHPO and the 
USACE is ongoing. 

2.7.4 Post-Draft EIS Consultation Activities 

On December 4, 2014 (NJDEP 2014-TN4288), the NRC received a revised opinion letter from 
the New Jersey SHPO finding that the project would result in an adverse effect to historic 
properties. The New Jersey SHPO stated that the visual intrusion of two new NDCTs, which 
are included in the PPE for the project, would result in an adverse effect to the Abel and Mary 
Nicholson House National Historic Landmark. In addition, the New Jersey SHPO felt that the 
properties at 349 Fort Elfsborg-Hancock Bridge Road (Elsinboro Township) and the John 
Maddox Denn House (112 Poplar Street, Lower Alloways Creek Township) should be 
considered eligible for the NRHP. In addition, the New Jersey SHPO inquired about the 
consideration given to identifying paleosols in the project area. 

In response to the revised New Jersey SHPO opinion, the NRC held a meeting on January 9, 
2015 in Salem County, New Jersey to discuss the New Jersey SHPOs concerns. In attendance 
at the meeting were representatives from the New Jersey SHPO, the USACE, PSEG, AKRF 
(PSEG’s contractor who conducted the historic preservation assessments for the DEIS), and a 
local historic preservation advocate for the region. Invited, but unable to attend, was the 
president of the Salem Old House Foundation. During the site visit, all of the properties of 
concern identified by the New Jersey SHPO were visited (i.e., the Abel and Mary Nicholson 
House, 349 Fort Elfsborg-Hancock Bridge Road, and the John Maddox Denn House) as was 
the project location for the Money Island Access Road project—specifically the Mason- 
Waddington House at 130 Money Island Road. Figure 2-30 and Figure 2-31 are views toward 
the existing HCGS NDCT from the Abel and Mary Nicholson NHL. In addition, a property at 116 
Mason Point Road was identified as having potential for historic significance. During the 
meeting, the NRC asked if the 2009 PSEG report on paleosols (PSEG 2015-TN4280) 
adequately addressed the SHPOs concern on that matter. A representative from the New 
Jersey SHPO stated that the PSEG report adequately addressed paleosols in the proposed 
project area. 

The consensus from the January 9, 2015 meeting was that additional research was needed to 
adequately consider the effects from the project. Between January and June 2015, the NRC 
met with the New Jersey SHPO, the ACHP, the NPS, interested members of the public, and 
PSEG to discuss the effects from the proposed project and to develop possible mitigation 
strategies for any potential effects. Meetings were held on: January 9, 2015 in Salem County, 
New Jersey; February 12, 2015 in Trenton, New Jersey; March 26, 2015 in Trenton, New 
Jersey; April 23, 2015 in Trenton, New Jersey; and May 19, 2015 in Salem County, New Jersey. 
Publicly noticed teleconferences were held on June 16, 2015 and August 12, 2015 (NRC 2015- 
TN4368). 


November 2015 


2-167 


NUREG-2168 



Affected Environment 



Figure 2-30. View of Abel and Mary Nicholson House NHL where the existing NDCT was 
not visible (May 11, 2012). 



Figure 2-31. View of Abel and Mary Nicholson House NHL showing existing cooling 
tower (January 9, 2015). 


In a March 13, 2015 letter (PSEG 2015-TN4289), the New Jersey SHPO proposed an Alloways 
Creek Rural Historic District consisting of the following properties: 


NUREG-2168 


2-168 


November 2015 










Affected Environment 


• Abel and Mary Nicholson House, 127 Fort Elfsborg-Hancock Bridge Road, Elsinboro 
Township; 

• Darkin House, 85 Amwellbury Road, Elsinboro Township; 

• Samuel and Sarah Nicholson House 153 Amwellbury Road, Elsinboro Township; 

• Morris Goodwin House, 337 Fort Elfsborg-Hancock Bridge Road, Elsinboro Township; 

• 349 Fort Elfsborg Road-Hancock Bridge Road, Elsinboro Township; 

• Colonel Benjamin Holme House, 410 Fort Elfsborg-Hancock Bridge Road; 

• John Mason House, 63 Money Island Road, Elsinboro Township; 

• Mason-Waddington House, 130 Money Island Road, Elsinboro Township; 

• 116 Mason Point Road, Elsinboro Township; 

• Isaac Smart House, 489 Salem-Fort Elfsborg Road, Elsinboro Township; 

• Nathaniel Chambless House, 277 Alloway Creek Neck Road, Lower Alloways Creek 
Township; 

• George Abbott House, 120 Abbotts Farm Road, Elsinboro Township; 

• Hancock House, 485 Locust Bridge Road, Lower Alloways Creek Township; and 

• John Maddox Denn House, 112 Poplar Street, Lower Alloways Creek Township. 

In May 2015, AKRF issued a new historic assessment which considered the NRHP eligibility of 
the properties identified by the New Jersey SHPO and the potential visual effects from the 
project on historic properties (AKRF 2015-TN4287). The assessment considered four 
properties: (i.e., 116 Mason Point Road, the Isaac Smart House [489 Salem-Fort Elfsborg 
Road], 349 Fort Elfsborg-Hancock Bridge Road, and the Joseph Darkin House [85 Amwellbury 
Road]). All other properties were examined in previous reports conducted for the proposed 
project (MACTEC 2009-TN2543; AKRF 2012-TN2876). The findings were presented at a 
consultation meeting in Salem County, New Jersey on May 19, 2015. In attendance were 
representatives from the NRC, the New Jersey SHPO, ACHP, PSEG, NPS, and interested 
members of the public. Per 36 CFR 800.10(c), the NRC officially notified the NPS of the 
potential adverse effect to a NHL (i.e., the Abel and Mary Nicholson House) and invited NPS to 
participate in consultation by letter dated June 24, 2015 (NRC 2015-TN4292). The AKRF report 
(AKRF 2015-TN4287) found that the two proposed NDCTs in the PPE for the ESP would only 
be visible from the following properties: 349 Fort Elfsborg-Hancock Bridge Road and 116 
Mason Point Road (AKRF 2015-TN4287). In addition, as established in the January 9, 2015 
meeting, the two proposed NDCTs from the ESP PPE would also be visible from the Abel and 
Mary Nicholson House. 

Based on the information contained in the AKRF report (AKRF 2015-TN4287) and the site visits 
and meetings which occurred between January and June 2015, the NRC issued letters on June 
24, 2015 to the New Jersey SHPO (NRC 2015-TN4290), the ACHP (NRC 2015-TN4291), and 
the NPS (NRC 2015-TN4292) stating its determination that the project would result in an indirect 
visual adverse effect on the Abel and Mary Nicholson House NHL, the property at 349 Fort 


November 2015 


2-169 


NUREG-2168 




Affected Environment 


Elfsborg-Hancock Bridge Road, and the property at 116 Mason Point Road (NRC 2015- 
TN4290; NRC 2015-TN4291; and NRC 2015-TN4292, respectively). The NRC indicated in its 
letter that a MOA was in development identifying how the adverse effect to these three 
properties would be resolved. In response, the ACHP (ACHP-2015-TN4341) and New Jersey 
SHPO (New Jersey SHPO-2015-TN4342) agreed to participate in the development of the draft 
MOA. On September 4, 2015, the draft MOA was issued for public comment in Federal 
Register (80 FR 53579-TN4344). The MOA was executed on October 14, 2015 (NRC 2015- 
TN4377), thereby completing Section 106 consultation for the proposed action. 

2.8 Geology 

The PSEG ER (PSEG 2015-TN4280) provides a description of the geological, seismological, 
and geotechnical conditions at the PSEG Site. The site lies within the coastal plain 
physiographic province, which extends from the Fall Line eastward to the Atlantic Ocean. 
Through the Fall Line, the larger streams cascade off the resistant igneous and metamorphic 
rocks down to sea level. Large tidal rivers, such as the Delaware, flow southeastward across 
the coastal plain to the Atlantic Ocean. The topography of the coastal plain is a terraced 
landscape that gently stair-steps down to the coast and to the major rivers. The risers are 
former shorelines, and the treads are emergent bay and river bottoms. The higher, older plains 
in the western part of the coastal plain are more dissected by stream erosion than the lower, 
younger terrace treads. This landscape was formed over the last few million years as sea level 
rose and fell in response to the repeated melting and growth of large continental glaciers and as 
the coastal plain slowly uplifted (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

The New Jersey coastal plain is underlain by a thick wedge of sediments that increases in 
thickness from a feather edge near the Fall Line to about 6,000 ft at the coast near Cape May, 
New Jersey. These sediments rest on an eroded surface of Precambrian to early Mesozoic 
rock. They range in age from Holocene at the surface to Cretaceous at depth (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280). The stratigraphic section for the PSEG Site is shown in Figure 2-32. This figure 
details the geologic era and period, stratigraphic unit, lithology, and approximate thickness at 
the PSEG Site. 

PSEG borings from the site identified 14 stratigraphic layers, most of which can be correlated to 
the regional geologic strata. The stratigraphic layers are grouped into the following four time 
periods according to geologic age (from oldest to youngest): 

• Cretaceous (Lower and Upper), 

• Paleogene (Lower Tertiary), 

• Neogene (Upper Tertiary), and 

• Quaternary (Pleistocene and Holocene). 

The Lower Cretaceous strata encountered during the geotechnical investigation at the PSEG 
Site is composed of a single unit, the Potomac Formation, which is recognized in only the 
deepest borings performed at the PSEG Site. This unit forms the base of the shallow 
subsurface (less than 500 ft) profile at the site. The borings at the PSEG Site were not deep 
enough to determine the depth of the Potomac Formation at the site (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 


NUREG-2168 


2-170 


November 2015 




Affected Environment 



Formation/Unit 

Lithologies 

Thickness 

>- 

O' 

Holocene 

Artificial fill 

clays, silts, and sands of vanous proportions 
along with clayey and silty gravels 

4.1 ±5.1 feet 

< 

z 

cn 

(recent) 

Hydraulic fill 

soft clayey silts, sandy silts and organic clays 

33.5 ± 12.3 feet 

HI 

*< 

3 

o 

Pleistocene 

Alluvium 

fine to coarse sand and gravel, peat and organic 
nch soils; silt and clay near base 

12.7 ± 12.3 feet 





unconformity 

> 

O' 

< 

Upper 

Tertiary 

(Neogene) 

Kirkwood Formation 

Upper member: greenish-gray, silty, fine sand, 
fine sand and greenish-gray to brown organic 
clay with organic matenal and shell fragments; 
Lower member: fine to coarse sand and gravel 
with vanable amounts of silt and day 

Upper member: 

14.5 ± 7.7 feet: 

Lower member: 

7.2 ± 7.8 feet 

l— 



OL 

HI 

1- 


unconformity 

Lower 

Tertiary 

(Paleogene) 

Vincentown Formation 

greenish-gray, fine to medium grained silty sand 
with some zones of dayey sand: variably 
glauconitic: cemented zones 

52.0 ±26.1 feet 


Homerstown Formation 

greenish-gray to dark green silty and clayey 
quartz and glauconitic sand with indurated zones 

18.6 ± 3.2 feet 



Navesink Formation 

fossil if erous. dark green to greenish-black 
glauconitic sand; pelecypod fragments 

24.3 ±2.3 feet 



Mount Laurel Formation 

brownish gray to dark green, fine to coarse 
grained sand; variable amounts of silt and clay; 
coarsening upward sequence 

103 ± 3.5 feet 



Wenonah Formation 

sandy clay with dayey sand 

15 feet 

</) 

Upper 

Cretaceous 

Marshalltown Formation 

glauconitic, silty and dayey fine sand 

25 feet 

3 

O 

HI 

o 

Englishtown Formation 

dark gray to black sandy day to clayey sand with 
shell fragments grades to black silt with trace 
amounts of mica and glauconite 

44 feet 

£ 


Woodbury Formation 

black, micaceous clay 

36 feet 

HJ 

Ct 

O 


Merchantville Formation 

dark greenish-black glauconitic silts and clays 
with vanable amounts of sand 

30 feet 


Magothy Formation 

interbeds of gray to dark gray, locally mottled silts 
and clays that are interbedded with sands; trace 
amounts of lignite and carbonaceous matenal 

52 feet 



/ 



unconformity 


Lower 

Cretaceous 

Potomac Group (Formation) 

red. gray, and white mottled clay 

1300 feet (Reference 2.5.1-17) 
PSEG No. 6 Production Well 







z o 


Basement Complex 

PRECAMBRIA 
TO PALEOZOI 

NeoProterozoic 
to Paleozoic 

Philadelphia Terrane 

Wissahickon Schist - reported as residual clay 
(PSEG No. 6 Production Well) 

undetermined 


Figure 2-32. Stratigraphic Section of the PSEG Site Modified from Site Safety Aanalysis 
Report Figure 2.5.1-34. Recent studies indicate that the Kirkwood 
Formation has been eroded from the site and identify the sediments above 
the Vincentown Formation as belonging to the Pleistocene-aged Cape May 
Formation (Owens & Minard 1979-TN4189; Owens et al. 1998-TN4190; 
Stanford 2011-TN4192) (Figure source: PSEG 2015-TN4283) 

The Upper Cretaceous strata encountered during the geotechnical investigation at the PSEG 
Site is composed of the following eight formations, listed from oldest to youngest: 

• Magothy Formation, 

• Merchantville Formation, 


November 2015 


2-171 


NUREG-2168 














































Affected Environment 


• Woodbury Formation, 

• Englishtown Formation, 

• Marshalltown Formation, 

• Wenonah Formation, 

• Mount Laurel Formation, and 

• Navesink Formation. 

The Paleogene strata (Lower Tertiary) encountered during the investigation at the PSEG Site is 
composed of two formations, listed from oldest to youngest: 

• Hornerstown Formation and 

• Vincentown Formation. 

As shown in Figure 2-32, the sediments overlying the Vincentown Formation encountered 
during the geotechnical investigation at the PSEG Site were identified in the ER and SSAR as 
the Kirkwood Formation (Upper Tertiary), subdivided into upper and lower units based on 
variations in lithology and the alluvium (Quaternary) (PSEG 2015-TN4280; PSEG 2015- 
TN4283). Recent studies indicate that the Kirkwood Formation was eroded from the PSEG Site 
during the Pleistocene and identify the sediments overlying the Vincentown Formation at 
Artificial Island as belonging to the Cape May Formation (Quaternary) (Owens & Minard 1979- 
TN4189; Stanford 2011-TN4192). According to New Jersey bedrock and surficial geology 
maps, the Kirkwood Formation occurs east of Artificial Island (Owens et al. 1998-TN4190; 

Newell et al. 2000-TN4191). 

The uppermost sediments at the PSEG Site are artificial and hydraulic fill. 

The thickness and depth to the tops of each layer and the hydraulic characteristics are 
discussed in Section 2.3 of this EIS. 

2.9 Meteorology and Air Quality 

The area surrounding the PSEG Site is a continental climate and includes extremes, but 
because of the proximity of the Delaware Bay, the site experiences a coastal marine influence. 
Elevations in the southwest portion of New Jersey are between sea level and 30.5 m (100 ft) 
above sea level. The southwest region of New Jersey is the warmest and driest part of the 
state. In the southwest region, prevailing winds vary depending on the orientation and distance 
to water bodies, except for the predominance of west-to-northwest (rotating clockwise) winds in 
winter. High humidity is common in this portion of New Jersey, and moderate temperatures 
prevail when winds flow from the south or the east. As described above, elevation variations at 
the southern end of the state, including the PSEG Site region, are minor. Therefore, the primary 
remaining factors that control local variation of the continental climate in the region are the 
moderating influences of the Delaware Bay and Atlantic Ocean (PSEG 2015-TN4283). 


NUREG-2168 


2-172 


November 2015 




Affected Environment 


2.9.1 Climate 

2.9.1.1 Wind 

The PSEG Site lies within the very broad, midlatitude prevailing westerly wind belt. There is 
some variation of prevailing winds across southern New Jersey from the Atlantic Ocean 
shoreline to the Delaware River Valley. During the 2006 to 2008 period, the prevailing annual 
wind direction for the site was from the northwest (continental polar air mass) and accounted for 
about 11 percent of the time. There was also a secondary maximum from the southeast 
(Delaware Bay breeze), which accounted for about 9 percent of the time. Winds from the 
northwest predominate during the winter months; southeasterly winds predominate followed by 
northwesterly winds during the spring months; and the winds from minor directions show 
somewhat higher frequencies than prevailing northwest-southeast directions during the summer 
and autumn months. No calm winds were recorded at the site because of the sensitivity of the 
onsite sonic wind sensor and the open exposure of the flat terrain and Delaware Bay (PSEG 
2015-TN4283). 

2.9.1.2 Temperature 

The area surrounding the PSEG Site is characterized by normal and extreme temperatures 
based on 10 representative surrounding observation stations. The extreme maximum 
temperature recorded in the vicinity of the site is 108°F at the Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania, 
cooperative monitoring station 26 mi to the north-northeast of the PSEG Site. The extreme 
minimum temperature recorded in the vicinity of the site is -15°F at Millington, Maryland, located 
23 mi to the southwest of the PSEG Site. Because of its location near the Delaware Bay, the 
PSEG Site typically experiences temperatures that are more moderate than the cooperative 
monitoring stations located farther inland (PSEG 2015-TN4283). 

2.9.1.3 Atmospheric Water Vapor 

Wet-bulb temperature, dew point temperature, and relative humidity data summaries were 
determined from the Wilmington, Delaware, National Weather Service (NWS) observation 
station to characterize the typical atmospheric moisture conditions near the PSEG Site. 

For a 25-year period of record, the mean annual wet-bulb temperature was 48.9°F at the 
Wilmington, Delaware, NWS site. The highest monthly mean wet-bulb temperature was 
69.0°F during July, and the lowest monthly mean wet-bulb temperature was 29.0°F during 
January. The mean annual dew point temperature was 44.6°F at Wilmington, which also 
reaches its maximum during summer and minimum during winter. The highest monthly mean 
dew point temperature was 66.1 °F during July, and the lowest monthly mean dew point 
temperature was 24.1°F during January (PSEG 2015-TN4283). 

Based on a 30-year period of record from the data recorded at the Wilmington, Delaware, NWS 
site, the relative humidity averages 68 percent on an annual basis. The average nighttime 
(at 0100 local standard time [LST]) relative humidity levels exceed 80 percent from June 
through October. Typically, the relative humidity values reach their diurnal maximum in the 
early morning (at 0700 LST) and diurnal minimum during the early afternoon (at 1300 LST) 
(PSEG 2015-TN4283). 


November 2015 


2-173 


NUREG-2168 


Affected Environment 


2.9.1.4 Precipitation 

Based on data from the surrounding monitoring stations, the mean annual total rainfall for the 
PSEG Site area ranges from 36.04 in. at the site to 46.28 in. at Dover, Delaware. The mean 
annual snowfall recorded at the surrounding stations ranges from 7.5 in. at Glassboro, New 
Jersey, located 26 mi to the northeast to 19.3 in. at the Philadelphia International Airport, 
located 30 mi to the north-northeast. The maximum recorded 24-hour snowfall of 30.7 in. was 
measured on January 8, 1996, at the Marcus Hook monitoring station, located about 26 mi 
north-northeast of the PSEG Site. The highest 24-hour rainfall total in the area was 11.68 in. 
on September 16, 1999, at the Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania, monitoring station. The highest 
monthly rainfall total in the site area was 16.13 in., recorded during September 1999 at the 
same monitoring station. The maximum monthly snowfall from records for regional stations is 
40.0 in. at Hammonton, New Jersey, during February 1899 (PSEG 2015-TN4283). 

The estimated weight of the 100-year return period ground level snowpack for the PSEG Site is 
about 24 lb/ft 2 . The 48-hour probable maximum winter precipitation is 21 in. of water, which 
corresponds to 109 lb/ft 2 (PSEG 2015-TN4283). 

2.9.1.5 Severe Weather 
Thunderstorms and Lightning 

On average, approximately 28 days with thunderstorm occurrences happen per year at the 
Wilmington, Delaware, reporting station. The majority of the storms recorded (73 percent) 
occurred between May and August. The frequency of lightning strikes to earth per square mile 
per year is approximately 8.6 for the PSEG Site and surrounding area. The power block area of 
a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site is an area of approximately 70 ac or 0.11 mi 2 . 

Given the annual average lightning strike to earth frequency of 8.6 per mi 2 /yr, the frequency of 
lightning strikes in the power block area is about one strike per year (PSEG 2015-TN4283). 

Extreme Winds 

Basic wind speed is used for design and operating bases. Basic wind speed is defined by the 
American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural Engineering Institute (ASCE/SEI) 7-05, 

“Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures,” as the “3-second gust wind speed 
at 33 ft (10 m) above the ground in Exposure Category C.” Exposure Category C relies on the 
surface roughness categories as defined in Chapter 6, “Wind Loads,” of ASCE/SEI 7-05. 
Exposure Category C is acceptable at the PSEG Site because of scattered obstructions of 
various sizes in the immediate site area. Exposure Category B specifies that there must be 
“urban and suburban areas, wooded areas, or other terrain with numerous closely spaced 
obstructions having the size of single-family dwellings or larger” prevailing “in the upwind 
direction for a distance of at least 2,600 ft (792 m) or 20 times the height of the building, 
whichever is greater.” Neither Exposure Category B nor Exposure Category D accurately 
describes the conditions at the PSEG meteorological tower. The basic wind speed for the 
PSEG Site is 90 mph, based on the plot of basic wind speeds in Figure 6-1C of ASCE/SEI 7-05. 
Basic wind speeds reported for hourly weather monitoring stations in the site area are as 
follows: 100 mph for Dover Air Force Base, Delaware; 110 mph for Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; 


NUREG-2168 


2-174 


November 2015 



Affected Environment 


and 100 mph for Wilmington, Delaware. Therefore, the highest of the four basic wind speed 
values selected is 110 mph for the return period, which is determined by multiplying the 50-year 
return period value by a factor of 1.07, listed in ASCE/SEI 7-05. That approach produced a 
100-year return period 3-second gust wind speed for the PSEG Site area of 117.7 mph (PSEG 
2015-TN4283). 

Tornadoes 

Total tornadoes and waterspouts recorded in a surrounding 8-county area (New Castle and 
Kent in Delaware; Cumberland, Salem, and Gloucester in New Jersey; and Queen Anne’s, 

Kent, and Cecil in Maryland) during a nearly 60-year period of record were 82 and 1, 
respectively. The strongest tornadoes found in the database for Salem County, New Jersey, 
were both rated F2. The first F2 tornado occurred on July 14, 1960, and damaged or destroyed 
several rural and residential structures. The tornado had a path length of 8 mi and a width of 
450 yd. The second F2 tornado in Salem County occurred on August 17, 1988, and had a path 
length of 2 mi and a width of 400 yards. The strongest tornado found in the database for New 
Castle County, Delaware, is rated F3 and occurred on April 28, 1961. That storm damaged a 
warehouse and had a path length of 0.25 mi and a width of 30 yd (PSEG 2015-TN4283). 

Per Regulatory Guide 1.76 (NRC 2007-TN3294), the site is located in tornado-intensity 
Region II, for which design basis tornado characteristics are presented in the following. The 
maximum wind speed resulting from passage of a tornado having a probability of occurrence of 
10 -7 per year is 200 mph. The translation and rotation components of the maximum tornado 
wind speed are 40 mph and 160 mph, respectively. The distance from the center of the tornado 
at which the maximum rotational wind speed occurs is 150 ft. The maximum pressure drop 
from normal atmospheric pressure resulting from passage of the tornado is 0.9 psi, and the rate 
of pressure drop is 0.4 psi/s (PSEG 2015-TN4283). 

Hail, Snowstorms, and Ice Storms 

Hail can accompany severe thunderstorms and can be a major weather hazard, causing 
significant damage to crops and property. Hail events have increased significantly over time, 
primarily as a result of increased reporting efficiency and confirmation skill. This increase in hail 
reports is also likely caused by the increased number of targets because of urbanization. This 
is because there are more targets damaged by hail in urban areas than in rural areas. 

Estimates of hail size can range widely based on the surrounding area’s population density and 
the years considered. The NOAA “Climate Atlas of the United States” was used to estimate that 
the annual mean number of days with hail 1.0 in. or greater in diameter is approximately 0.5 per 
year at the PSEG Site. During the 60-year period covered in the NOAA reference, large hail 
events (i.e., those with hail having a diameter greater than 1.75 in.) occurred on three occasions 
each in Salem County, New Jersey, and New Castle County, Delaware (PSEG 2015-TN4283). 

On average during the period from 1961 to 1990, snowfall occurred at the PSEG Site and within 
the surrounding area during 2.5 to 5.4 days per year. Freezing precipitation occurred in the site 
area on an average of 5.5 to 10.4 days per year. Annual snowfall is highly variable across the 
region and ranges from 10 in. to 50 in. Occasionally, these snow events are accompanied by, 
or alternate with, sleet and freezing rain as the weather system moves over the area. As 


November 2015 


2-175 


NUREG-2168 


Affected Environment 


discussed in Section 2.9.1.4, the largest recorded daily snowfall for the site climate region is 
30.7 in. at Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania, on January 8, 1996. The highest monthly total of 
40.0 in. occurred at Hammonton, New Jersey, during February 1899 (PSEG 2015-TN4283). 

Weather records for Salem County, New Jersey and New Castle County, Delaware indicate that 
freezing precipitation events tend to occur each year. Based on the period of 1950 through the 
winter of 2008-2009, the maximum thicknesses of ice accumulation are typically 0.1 or 0.2 in. 
The maximum observed ice thickness in the two counties was about 0.5 in. (PSEG 2015- 
TN4283). 

Tropical Cyclones 

According to the National Hurricane Center online historical database, between 1851 and 
2008, 109 tropical cyclone centers passed within a 115-mi radius of the PSEG Site. Of the 
109 tropical cyclone centers, 31 were extra-tropical depressions, 9 were tropical depressions, 

60 were tropical storms, 6 were Category 1 hurricanes, and 3 were Category 2 hurricanes 
(PSEG 2015-TN4283). Tropical cyclones have occurred within this area as early as May and as 
late as November. The highest frequency of storms occurs during September (PSEG 2015- 
TN4283). 

Most recently, Hurricane Sandy came through the PSEG Site in Salem County on 
October 29, 2012, bringing heavy rain and wind and causing severe flooding throughout New 
Jersey, Delaware, New York, and nearby areas. This storm resulted in PSEG workers requiring 
several days to restore power caused by damage to transmission systems (Gopinath 2012- 
TN3375). 

2.9.1.6 A tmospheric Stability 

Stability class is based on the HCGS and SGS onsite primary meteorological tower 150-33 ft 
vertical temperature difference (delta-T), and winds are based on 33-ft level measurements 
(PSEG 2015-TN4283). Table 2.3-27 in the PSEG SSAR (PSEG 2015-TN4283) provides the 
annual mean joint frequency distributions of wind direction and wind speed versus Pasquill 
atmospheric stability class for the period 2006 to 2008. Atmospheric stability is a critical 
parameter for estimating atmospheric dispersion characteristics. 

There is a predominance of slightly stable (Pasquill stability class E) and neutral (Pasquill 
stability class D) conditions at the proposed PSEG Site. Extremely unstable conditions (Pasquill 
stability class A) occur about 12 percent of the time, while extremely stable conditions (Pasquill 
stability class G) occur about 7 percent of the time. Based on past experience with stability data 
at various sites, a predominance of slightly stable (Pasquill stability class E) and neutral 
(Pasquill stability class D) conditions at the proposed PSEG Site is generally consistent with 
expected meteorological conditions (PSEG 2015-TN4283). 

2.9.2 Air Quality 

The discussion of air quality includes the six common “criteria pollutants” for which the EPA has 
set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (EPA 2013-TN1975): ozone (O3), 
particulate matter (PM 10 and PM 2 5, which are particulate matter with a mean aerodynamic 


NUREG-2168 


2-176 


November 2015 




Affected Environment 


diameter of less than or equal to 10 pm and 2.5 pm, respectively), carbon monoxide (CO), 
nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), and lead (Pb). The air-quality discussion also 
includes heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs), primarily carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), which have 
been the principal factor causing climate change over the last 50 years (GCRP 2014-TN3472). 

The EPA designated the entire state of New Jersey as nonattainment for the 8-hour O3 NAAQS 
(NJDEP 2013-TN2493). Every county in New Jersey is part of a multi-State nonattainment 
area, separated into northern and southern counties. The northern New Jersey counties are 
part of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island (NY-NJ-CT) nonattainment area, and 
the southern New Jersey counties are part of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City (PA-NJ- 
MD-DE) nonattainment area (NJDEP 2013-TN2493). The PSEG Site is located in Salem 
County, New Jersey. Salem County is in the PA-NJ-MD-DE nonattainment area for 8-hour O3 
NAAQS (40 CFR 81.331 [TN255]) and administratively in the Metropolitan Philadelphia 
Interstate Air Quality Control Region (40 CFR 81.15 [TN255]). With the exception of the 8-hour 
O3 NAAQS, air quality in Salem County is in attainment with or better than national standards for 
criteria pollutants. Emissions from new sources in attainment areas are evaluated by the State 
of New Jersey through the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program. In nonattainment 
areas, the emissions of pollutants that are precursors to O3 are regulated by the State of New 
Jersey. The primary precursors to O3 are oxides of nitrogen (NO x ) and volatile organic 
compounds (VOCs). In the State of New Jersey, evaluation of new sources in nonattainment 
areas is through the nonattainment New Source Review program (NJAC 7:27-TN3290). 

New Castle County, Delaware, which is located to the north and west of the PSEG Site, is in 
attainment for all criteria pollutants except the 8-hour 0 3 NAAQS (40 CFR 81.308 [TN255]). 
Along with Salem County, New Castle County is also in the PA-NJ-MD-DE nonattainment area. 
Effective September 4, 2014, New Castle County was redesignated from nonattainment area to 
maintenance area for the PM 2.5 NAAQS (79 FR 45350-TN4293). 

The closest mandatory Class I Federal area to the PSEG Site is Brigantine Wilderness Area at 
the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge north of Brigantine, New Jersey, about 60 mi 
east of the PSEG Site (40 CFR 81.420 [TN255]). Federal Class I areas are afforded additional 
protection under Section 169A of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401 et seq. -TN1141) for visibility 
criteria. 

Climate changes are under way in the United States and globally, and their extent is projected 
to continue to grow substantially over the next several decades unless concerted measures are 
taken to reverse this trend. Climate-related changes include rising temperatures and sea levels; 
increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather (e.g., heavy downpours, floods, and 
droughts); earlier snowmelts and associated frequent wildfires; and reduced snow cover, 
glaciers, permafrost, and sea ice. Climate changes are closely linked to increases in GHGs 
(GCRP 2014-TN3472). GHGs are transparent to incoming short-wave radiation from the sun 
but are opaque to outgoing long-wave (infrared) radiation from the earth s surface. The net 
effect over time is a trapping of absorbed radiation and a tendency to warm the earth’s 
atmosphere, which together constitute the "greenhouse effect.’ Since the onset of the Industrial 
Revolution in the mid-1700s, human activities have contributed to the production of GHGs, 
primarily through the combustion of fossil fuels (such as coal, oil, and natural gas) and 
deforestation. The principal GHGs that enter the atmosphere because of human activities 


November 2015 


2-177 


NUREG-2168 



Affected Environment 


include CO 2 , methane (ChU), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and 
sulfur hexafluoride. However, some GHGs such as CO 2 , CH 4 , and N 2 O are emitted to the 
atmosphere through natural processes as well. 

2.9.3 Atmospheric Dispersion 

Projected Air Quality 

Generation of electricity at a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site would not be a source 
of criteria pollutants. However, supporting equipment such as cooling towers, auxiliary boilers, 
emergency diesel generators, and/or combustion turbines would emit criteria pollutants. Air- 
quality impacts of these sources are discussed in Section 5.7. Impacts of air emissions during 
development of the PSEG Site are discussed in Section 4.7. 

Restrictive Dispersion Conditions 

Stagnation conditions, which restrict the atmospheric dispersion and can contribute to pollution 
episodes, occur at the PSEG Site approximately 11 days per year (PSEG 2015-TN4283). The 
potential for air pollution also is related to atmospheric mixing heights and wind speeds through 
the mixing layer (Holzworth 1972-TN3024). Table 2-38 summarizes approximate mean 
seasonal and annual morning and afternoon mixing heights. Lowest morning mixing heights 
occur during summer, and highest morning mixing heights occur during winter. Afternoon 
mixing heights are lowest during winter and highest during summer. Lowest mean wind speeds 
occur during summer mornings, while highest mean wind speeds occur during spring 
afternoons. 


Table 2-38. Mean Seasonal and Annual Morning and Afternoon Mixing Heights and Wind 
Speeds at the PSEG Site 


Parameter 

Winter 

Spring 

Summer 

Autumn 

Annual 

Morning Mixing Height (m) 

825 

750 

600 

725 

700 

Morning Wind Speed (mph) 

18.5 

15.1 

10.1 

12.3 

12.9 

Morning Wind Speed (m/s) 

8.3 

6.8 

4.5 

5.5 

5.8 

Afternoon Mixing Height (m) 

1,000 

1,650 

1,700 

1,250 

1,350 

Afternoon Wind Speed (mph) 

18.5 

19.0 

13.4 

15.7 

16.8 

Afternoon Wind Speed (m/s) 

8.3 

8.5 

6.0 

7.0 

7.5 

Source: PSEG 2015-TN4280. 


Short- and Long-Term Dispersion Estimates from Power Plant Operation 

Atmospheric dispersion consists of two components: (1) atmospheric transport due to 
organized or mean wind flow in the atmosphere and (2) atmospheric diffusion due to 
disorganized or random air movements. The magnitude of the atmospheric dispersion is a 
function of the wind speed, wind direction, and atmospheric stability class. The lower the 
alphabetic atmospheric class designation (Class A) in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.145 
(NRC 1983-TN279), the more unstable the atmosphere and the more rapid the atmospheric 


NUREG-2168 


2-178 


November 2015 








Affected Environment 


dispersion. The air-quality analyses for emissions from supporting facilities (e.g., boilers and 
diesel generators) are described in Section 5.7. 

2.9.3 .7 Short- Term Dispersion Estimates 

PSEG calculated short-term dispersion estimates using 3 years of onsite meteorological data 
(January 1,2006, through December 31,2008). These estimates were based on distances to 
the exclusion area boundary (EAB) and outer boundary of the low population zone (LPZ) as 
defined in Section 2 of the ER (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

The NRC staffs short-term dispersion estimates for use in design basis accident calculations 
are listed in Table 2-39. They are based on the PAVAN computer code (Bander 1982-TN538) 
calculations of 1-hour and annual average atmospheric dispersion (x/Q) values from a joint 
frequency distribution of wind speed, wind direction, and atmospheric stability. These values 
were calculated for the shortest distances from a release boundary envelope that encloses the 
PSEG Unit 1 or Unit 2 release points to the EAB and to the LPZ. The 50 percent EAB x/Q value 
listed in Table 2-39 is the median 1-hour y/Q, which is assumed to persist for 2 hours. The 
50 percent LPZ y/Q values listed in Table 2-39 were determined by logarithmic interpolation 
between the median 1-hour y/Q, which was assumed to persist for 2 hours, and the annual 
average y/Q following the procedure described in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.145 (NRC 1983- 
TN279). 

Table 2-39. Atmospheric Dispersion Factors for Proposed Units 1 and 2 Design Basis 
Accident Calculations 


Time Period (a) 

Boundary 

X/Q (s/m 3 ) 

0 to 2 hr 

Exclusion Area Boundary 

9.82 x nr 5 

0 to 8 hr 

Low Population Zone 

1.37 x 1CT 6 

8 to 24 hr 

Low Population Zone 

1.06 x 10' 6 

1 to 4 days 

Low Population Zone 

6.16 x 10~ 7 

4 to 30 days 

Low Population Zone 

2.82 x IQ’ 7 

(a) Times are relative to beginning of the release to the environment. 

Source: NRC Confirmatory Calculations. 


2.9.3.2 L ong- Term Dispersion Estimates 

Long-term dispersion estimates for use in evaluation of the radiological impacts of normal 
operations were calculated by PSEG using the XOQDOQ computer code (Sagendorf et al. 
1982-TN280) and 3 years of onsite meteorological data (January 1, 2006, through December 
31, 2008) (PSEG 2015-TN4283). This code implements the guidance set forth in Revision 1 of 
NRC Regulatory Guide 1.111 (NRC 1977-TN91) for estimation of y/Q and deposition factors 
(D/Q) for use in evaluation of the consequences of normal reactor operations. The results of the 
PSEG calculations are presented in Table 2-40 for receptors of interest, including the nearest 
site boundary, the nearest residence, the nearest milk cow, the nearest milk goat, the nearest 
meat animal, and the nearest vegetable garden. 


November 2015 


2-179 


NUREG-2168 










Affected Environment 


Table 2-40. Maximum Annual Average Atmospheric Dispersion (%/Q) and Deposition 
Factors (D/Q) for Evaluation of Normal Effluents for Receptors of Interest 


Receptor 

Downwind 

Sector 

Distance 

(mi) 

No Decay 
Undepleted 

x/Q (s/m 3 ) 

2.26-Day 

Decay 

Undepleted 

8-Day 

Decay 

Depleted 

D/Q 

(1/m 2 ) 

Nearest Site Boundary 

ENE 

0.24 

1.0 x 10' 5 

1.0 x 10" 5 

9.5 x IO" 6 

4.1 x 10 -8 

Nearest Meat Animal (a) 

NW 

4.90 

1.1 X 10" 7 

1.1 x 1CT 7 

OO 

k> 

X 

o 

1 

oo 

3.5 x 10~ 10 

Nearest Milk Producing 
Animals (a)(b) 

NW 

4.90 

i.i x io- 7 

1.1 x 1CT 7 

8.2 x 10" 8 

3.5 x 10' 10 

Nearest Residence 

NW 

2.80 

2.4 x 10- 7 

2.4 x 1(T 7 

1.9 x 10' 7 

o 

1 

O 

X 

CO 

CD 

Nearest Vegetable 

Garden (a) 

NW 

4.90 

1.1 X 10' 7 

1.1 x 1CT 7 

8.2 x 10' 8 

3.5 x 10" 10 

(a) Meat animals, milk producing animals, and vegetable gardens are assumed to exist at the closest farm. 

(b) Goats are assumed to be the milk producing animal. 

Source: PSEG 2015-TN4283. 








2.9.4 Meteorological Monitoring 

The PSEG Site consists of 819 ac located on the southern part of Artificial Island on the east 
bank of the Delaware River. The existing PSEG meteorological tower is located due east of 
SGS and southeast of the proposed location of the power block for a new nuclear power plant at 
the PSEG Site. The surrounding terrain is essentially mixed marsh, cropland, and woodland 
with only an occasional grouping of low trees. Distances between the existing meteorological 
tower and significant features in the area are as follows (PSEG 2015-TN4283): 

• 5,470 ft southeast of the power block area for a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site, 

• at least 4,500 ft from the SGS and HCGS reactor buildings, 

• 4,700 ft southeast of the existing 512-ft tall NDCT at HCGS, 

• 6,800 ft southeast of the cooling towers for a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site, and 

• about 1,180 ft due north of the closest portion of the Delaware Bay. 

The PSEG Site is located on Artificial Island, a human-made portion of land that is relatively flat 
(Figure 2-33). There are no discernible changes in elevation or vegetation near the 
meteorological tower that would adversely affect meteorological measurements. The elevation 
of the meteorological tower is 11.9 ft NAVD. The site grade elevation for a new nuclear power 
plant at the PSEG Site is expected to be 36.9 ft (PSEG 2015-TN4283). 

The meteorological tower is a 300-ft guyed, triangular, open-lattice tower with a solid cement 
base. As shown in Figure 2-34 and Figure 2-35, instrumentation booms extend outward into the 
prevailing wind, which is from the northwest. The sensors are mounted on the booms at 
distances equal to more than twice the tower maximum horizontal width. Ground cover around 
the tower is light colored gravel surrounded by low-lying marsh land. There are no trees of any 
consequence in the tower vicinity (PSEG 2015-TN4283). 


NUREG-2168 


2-180 


November 2015 









Affected Environment 


PSEG maintains a backup meteorological tower consisting of a 33-ft utility pole (seen in 
foreground of Figure 2-34). This backup tower is located 386 ft south of the primary tower and 
is surrounded by vegetation and gravel similar to that surrounding the primary tower (PSEG 
2015-TN4283). 

2.9.4 .7 Instrumentation 

The instrumentation on the existing meteorological tower is as follows (PSEG 2015-TN4283): 

• 300-ft level—wind speed and direction, sigma theta, 300-33 ft delta temperature, dry bulb 
temperature, and relative humidity; 

• 197-ft level—wind speed and direction, sigma theta, and 197-33 ft delta temperature; 

• 150-ft level—wind speed and direction, sigma theta, and 150-33 ft delta temperature; 

• 33-ft level—wind speed and direction, sigma theta, dry bulb temperature, dew point 
temperature, and relative humidity; 

• surface—barometric pressure, precipitation, and solar radiation; and 

• backup tower (33 ft)—wind speed and direction and sigma theta. 

The meteorological monitoring system uses a Met One instrumentation package and data 
recording system located in a 12-ft high meteorological building adjacent to the tower, as seen 
in Figure 2-34. The data recording system is a state-of-the-art digital system with displays in the 
meteorological building. The wind speed and direction and sigma theta sensors are Met One 
50.5H Sonic Wind Sensors, while the temperature sensors are Met One Model 060A-2 
thermistors. Delta-temperature measurements are recorded by matched pairs of Met One 
Model 062MP instruments. The dew point measurements are made by an Edge Tech 200M 
Chilled Mirror Sensor at the 33-ft level. The precipitation measurements are made at ground 
level by a Met One Model 375 Tipping Rain/Snow Gauge (PSEG 2015-TN4283). See 
Table 2-41 for instrumentation specifications. 

2.9.4.2 Data Recording 

Tower sensors are digitally sampled once per second. Fifteen minute and hourly averages are 
calculated and stored in separate 15-min and hourly average files. Precipitation is totaled 
hourly. The hourly data are stored to be later used in yJQ and dose assessment calculations 
(PSEG 2015-TN4283). 

2.9.4.3 Instrument Maintenance 

Full system calibrations are done on a 3-month basis. These calibrations include everything 
from the meteorological sensors to the data acquisition system. Wind sensors are swapped out 
and returned to Met One for a wind tunnel calibration on an annual basis (during every fourth 
calibration) (PSEG 2015-TN4283). 

The maximum height of influence of a structure wake generally does not exceed 2.5 times the 
structure height for a squat building (width greater than height) such as the meteorological 
building at the base of the primary meteorological tower. The meteorological building is 12 ft 


November 2015 


2-181 


NUREG-2168 



Affected Environment 


high. Based on that height, the upper limit of the meteorological building aerodynamic wake will 
not exceed a height of 30 ft, which is below the height of the lowest 33 ft wind measurements on 
the primary tower. Therefore, the meteorological building aerodynamic wake does not affect 
meteorological tower wind measurements. Additionally, the 10:1 distance/height ratio criterion 
does not apply to the meteorological building because its height (12 ft) does not exceed one half 
the height of the lowest wind measurement (33 ft). 

Overall, the topography (including raising the grade for a portion of the site) and existing and 
new plant structures in the vicinity of the onsite meteorological towers are not expected to 
adversely affect meteorological measurements. Similarly, vegetation and minor structures in 
the vicinity of the meteorological towers, such as the meteorological building, will not adversely 
affect meteorological measurements. 



Figure 2-33. View of SGS and HCGS Looking West-Northwest from the Existing PSEG 
Meteorological Tower Unit (Source: NRC staff photograph) 


NUREG-2168 


2-182 


November 2015 











Affected Environment 



Figure 2-34. Existing PSEG Meteorological Tower and Meteorological 

Building with Backup Meteorological Tower in Foreground (Source: NRC 
staff photograph) 


November 2015 


2-183 


NUREG-2168 

















Affected Environment 



Figure 2-35. Close-up View of 33-ft Instrument Boom (dew-point sensor can be seen 
near top left corner of image; dry-bulb temperature, wind speed, wind 
direction, and delta-temperature instruments are at the end of the boom on 
the right side of the image) (Source: NRC staff photograph) 


NUREG-2168 


2-184 


November 2015 









Affected Environment 


Table 2-41. Existing PSEG Meteorological Instrumentation Performance Specifications 


Parameter 

Sensor 

Range 

Threshold 

Accuracy 

Resolution 

Wind Speed 

Met One 

0 to 111.8 mph 

0.22 mph 

±0.33 mph for 

0.1 mph 


Model 50.5H 


(0.1 m/s) 

< 11 mph 



Sonic Wind 



±2.0% for 



Sensor 



>11 mph 


Wind Direction 

Met One 

0-360° 

0.22 mph 

o 

CO 

+1 

1.0° 


Model 50.5H 


(0.1 m/s) 




Sonic Wind 






Sensor 





Sigma Theta 

Met One 

— 

— 

— 

1.0° 


Model 50.5H 




(0.1°for 


Sonic Wind 




upgraded 


Sensor 




equipment) 

Ambient 

Met One 

-58°F to +122°F 

— 

±0.2°F 

0.2°F 

Temperature 

Model 060A-2 

(-50°C to +50°C) 


(±0.1°C) 

(0.1°C) 

Dew Point 

Edge Tech 200M 

-103°F to +140°F 

— 

±0.50°F 

0.2°F 


Chilled Mirror 

(-75°C to +60°C) 


(±0.25°C) 

(o.rc) 


Sensor 





Delta- 

Met One 

-5°C to 10°C 

— 

±0.02°C for 

0.02°F 

Temperature 

Model 062MP 



matched sets; 

(0.01°C) 





Up to ±0.1°C 






for 15°C max 






delta-T 


Barometric 

Met One 

26 to 32 in. Hg 

— 

— 

0.01 in. 

Pressure 

Model 090D 





Precipitation 

Met One 

0.00 to 1.00 in./hr 

— 

±1% at 

0.01 in. 


Model 375 Tipping 



1 to 3 in./hr 



Rain/Snow Gauge 





Solar Radiation Met One Model 95 

0.00 to 2.00 

— 

— 

0.01 Langley 



Langleys 




Source: PSEG 2015-TN4283. 


2.10 Nonradiological Health 

This section describes aspects of the environment at the PSEG Site and the vicinity of the site 
associated with nonradiological human health impacts. The section provides the baseline for 
evaluation of impacts to human health from building and operating a new nuclear power plant at 
the PSEG Site. Building activities have the potential to affect public and occupational health, 
create impacts from noise, and impact health of the public and workers from transportation of 
construction materials and workers to the building site. Operation of a new plant has the 
potential to impact the public and workers at the PSEG Site from operation of the cooling 
system; noise generated by operations; electromagnetic fields (EMF) generated by transmission 
systems; and transportation of operations and outage workers to and from the site. 


November 2015 


2-185 


NUREG-2168 







Affected Environment 


2.10.1 Public and Occupational Health 

This section describes public and occupational health at the PSEG Site and vicinity associated 
with air quality, occupational injuries, and etiological agents (i.e., disease-causing 
microorganisms). 

2.10.1.1 Air Quality 

Public and occupational health can be impacted by changes in air quality from activities that 
contribute to fugitive dust, vehicle and equipment exhaust emissions, and automobile exhaust 
from commuter traffic (NRC 1996-TN288). Air quality near the PSEG Site is discussed in 
Section 2.9.2. As discussed in that section, Salem County, New Jersey, and New Castle 
County, Delaware, are designated as attainment areas for all criteria pollutants except 8-hour 
O3. Recently, New Castle County was redesignated from nonattainment area to maintenance 
area for PM 2 . 5 . Fugitive dust and particulate matter from engine exhaust (including PM 10 and 
PM 2 . 5 ) can be released into the atmosphere during any site excavations and grading. Most of 
the activities that generate fugitive dust would be short in duration, cover a small area, and 
controllable using watering, application of soil adhesives, seeding, and other best management 
practices employed by PSEG (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Exhaust emissions during normal plant operations associated with onsite vehicles and 
equipment, as well as from commuter traffic, can affect air quality. Nonradiological supporting 
equipment (e.g., diesel generators and/or gas turbines, auxiliary boilers) and other 
nonradiological emission-generating sources (e.g., storage tanks) or activities at the PSEG Site 
are not a significant source of criteria pollutant emissions. Diesel generators and/or gas 
turbines would be in place for emergency use only but would be started regularly to test that the 
systems are operational. The auxiliary boilers would be used for heating buildings, primarily 
during the winter months, and for process steam during site start-ups. Emissions from 
nonradiological air pollution sources are permitted by the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401 et seq. - 
TN1141) and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 

2.10.1.2 Occupational Injuries 

In general, occupational health risks to workers and onsite personnel engaged in activities such 
as building, maintenance, testing, excavation, and modifications are expected to be dominated 
by occupational injuries (e.g., falls, electric shock, asphyxiation) or occupational illnesses. 
Historically, actual injury and fatality rates at nuclear reactor facilities have been lower than the 
average U.S. industrial rates, with a 2009 average incidence rate of 0.6 per 100 workers 
(BLS 2010-TN2427). The annual incidence rates (the number of injuries and illnesses per 
100 full-time workers) for the State of New Jersey and the United States for electrical power 
generation, transmission, and distribution workers are 3.9 and 3.6, respectively (BLS 2010- 
TN2428; BLS 2010-TN2731). These statistics are used to estimate the likely number of 
occupational injuries and illnesses for operation of the existing SGS and HCGS and to predict 
the likely number of cases for a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site. 

Occupational injury and fatality risks are reduced by strict adherence to the NRC and 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) safety standards, practices, and 


NUREG-2168 


2-186 


November 2015 


Affected Environment 


procedures required to minimize worker exposures. Appropriate state and local statutes also 
must be considered when assessing the occupational hazards and health risks associated with 
the PSEG Site. Currently, the existing PSEG Site has programs and personnel to promote safe 
work practices and respond to occupational injuries and illnesses at SGS and HCGS. PSEG 
has implemented procedures at SGS and HCGS providing personnel who work at the existing 
plants with an effective means of preventing accidents due to unsafe conditions and unsafe 
acts. They include safe work practices to address hearing protection; personal protective 
equipment; electrical safety; chemical handling, storage, and use; and other industrial hazards. 
In addition, personnel are provided with training on safety procedures (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

2.10.1.3 Etiological A gents 

Public and occupational health can be compromised by activities at the PSEG Site that 
encourage the growth of disease-causing microorganisms (etiological agents). Thermal 
discharges from the water circulation system at a new nuclear power plant to the Delaware 
River have the potential to increase the growth of thermophilic microorganisms. The types of 
organisms of concern for public and occupational health include enteric pathogens (such as 
Salmonella spp., Shigella spp., and Pseudomonas aeruginosa), thermophilic fungi, bacteria 
(such as Legionella spp.), and free-living amoeba (such as Naegleria fowlerianb 
Acanthamoeba spp.). These microorganisms could give rise to potentially serious human 
health concerns, particularly at high exposure levels. 

Available data assembled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for the 
years 2000 to 2010 (CDC 2002-TN2444; CDC 2002-TN2438; CDC 2003-TN2437; CDC 2004- 
TN2435; CDC 2004-TN2436; CDC 2005-TN2442; CDC 2006-TN2445; CDC 2006-TN2441; 

CDC 2007-TN2440; CDC 2008-TN2439; CDC 2008-TN557; CDC 2010-TN2447; CDC 2011- 
TN2446; CDC 2011-TN2448; CDC 2011-TN558; CDC 2012-TN2378; CDC 2013-TN2377) were 
reviewed for outbreaks of Legionellosis, Salmonellosis, or Shigellosis. Outbreaks that occurred 
in Delaware or New Jersey from 2000 to 2010 were within the range of national trends in terms 
of cases per 100,000 population or total cases per year, and the outbreaks were associated with 
pools, spas, or lakes. The Salem County Department of Health and the New Jersey and 
Delaware state health agencies have not recorded any major waterborne disease outbreaks in 
the Delaware River in proximity to the PSEG Site (PSEG 2015-TN4283). The CDC Council of 
State Territorial Epidemiologists Naegleria Work Group, after reviewing the data from different 
sources, identified 123 fatal cases of primary amebic meningoencephalitis (PAM, caused by 
Naegleria fowleri) in the United States between 1962 and 2011; most cases occurred in 
southern states during the months of July and September, and no cases of PAM have been 
associated with the region encompassing the Delaware River (CDC 2013-TN2375). 

2.10.2 Noise 

Any pressure variation that the human ear can detect is considered as sound, and noise is 
defined as unwanted sound. Sound is described in terms of amplitude (perceived as loudness) 
and frequency (perceived as pitch). Sound pressure levels are typically measured by using the 
logarithmic decibel (dB) scale A-weighting (denoted by dBA) (ASA 1983-TN2836; ASA 1985- 
TN2837). The dBA measure, which is widely used to account for human sensitivity to 
frequencies of sound (i.e., less sensitive to lower and higher frequencies and most sensitive to 


November 2015 


2-187 


NUREG-2168 


Affected Environment 


sounds between 1 and 5 kHz), correlates well with a human’s subjective reaction to sound. 
Several sound descriptors have been developed to account for variations of sound with time. 

L90 is the sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time, called the residual sound level (or 
background level) or fairly steady lower sound level on which discrete single sound events are 
superimposed. The equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is a sound level that, if it were 
continuous during a specific time period, would contain the same total energy as a time-varying 
sound. (Unless designated otherwise, all sound levels are instantaneous or Leq values 
measured over short time periods, such as one minute.) In addition, human responses to noise 
differ depending on the time of the day (e.g., higher sensitivity to noise during nighttime hours 
because of lower background noise levels). The day-night average sound level (Ldn or DNL) is 
a single dBA value calculated from hourly Leq over a 24-hour period, with the addition of 
10 dBA to sound levels from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. to account for the greater sensitivity of most 
people to nighttime noise. Generally, a 3-dBA change over existing noise levels is considered 
to be a “just noticeable” difference, while a 10-dBA increase is subjectively perceived as a 
doubling in loudness and almost always causes an adverse community response (ASA 1983- 
TN2836; ASA 1985-TN2837). 

The noise around the PSEG Site is typical of a commercial operation in a mostly rural area 
because there are no schools, businesses, or commercial buildings within 5 mi of the site 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). The primary operational noise sources associated with SGS and HCGS 
and a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site are the switchyard, transformers, and cooling 
towers (NDCTs, mechanical draft cooling towers [MDCTs], and fan-assisted NDCTs). 
Fan-assisted NDCTs are continuous noise sources during plant operation, with an estimated 
noise emission of 60 dBA at 1,000 ft. The estimated noise emissions for the MDCTs and 
NDCTs are 58 and 50 dBA at 1,000 ft, respectively (PSEG 2015-TN4283). These operational 
noises mix with those from traffic, residential activities, and natural sources. While noise is 
diminished by distance, foliage, and geographic features, it will be attenuated much less over 
water. 

In 2009, PSEG conducted a baseline noise survey and concluded that the noise from sources at 
SGS and HCGS met the New Jersey and Delaware industrial standards of 65 dBA for daytime 
at the PSEG Site property boundary (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Based on natural attenuation of 
noise over distance, noise levels estimated for the onsite cooling towers at a new plant at the 
PSEG Site would not exceed the Delaware and New Jersey nighttime noise standards of 
55 and 50 dBA, respectively, at the property boundary of the nearest residence. The estimated 
fan-assisted NDCT noise level at 10,000 ft is 41 dBA, with the nearest residences located 
14,700 ft to the west and 15,900 ft to the east (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

2.10.3 Transportation 

The transportation network surrounding the PSEG Site consists of access roads for SGS and 
HCGS, New Jersey state and county highways, and a railway. Most traffic is personal vehicle 
and over-the-road tractor/trailer transport. Plant workers from the surrounding areas primarily 
travel toward SGS and HCGS on a variety of interstate, state, and secondary roads where they 
converge on the existing access road, which is the only land access to the existing PSEG 
property (PSEG 2015-TN4280). A new plant at the PSEG Site would have an additional 4.8-mi 
causeway to the north-northeast that would connect with CR 672 (PSEG 2015-TN4283). The 


NUREG-2168 


2-188 


November 2015 


Affected Environment 


construction and operations workforces for a new plant would be expected to use this causeway 
instead of the existing PSEG property access road. A new plant would also have direct access 
to the Delaware River via a barge unloading facility. 

Preconstruction and construction activities for a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site 
could have impacts to traffic patterns along roadways and intersections in the Salem County 
area. In 2009, PSEG conducted a traffic impact analysis to determine improvements to mitigate 
traffic problems (including potential traffic accidents) associated with increased traffic volume 
during development of a new nuclear power plant, as the traffic volume is projected to increase 
to approximately 2,200 cars during building and to 1,200 cars during operation and refueling 
outages (PSEG 2015-TN4280). It is anticipated that installation of traffic controls and additional 
turn lanes as part of the preconstruction and construction activities would improve the overall 
traffic patterns during building of a new plant as well as afterwards when traffic volume supports 
operations and refueling activities (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

2.10.4 Electromagnetic Fields 

Transmission lines generate both electric and magnetic fields, referred to collectively as EMFs. 
Public and worker health can be compromised by acute exposure to electrical sources 
associated with power transmission systems, including switching stations (or substations) on the 
site and transmission lines connecting the plant to the regional electrical distribution grid. 
Transmission lines operate at a frequency of 60 Hz (60 cycles per second), which is considered 
to be extremely low frequency (ELF). In comparison, television transmitters have frequencies of 
55 to 890 MHz, and microwaves have frequencies of 1,000 MHz and greater (NRC 1996- 
TN288). The existing transmission corridors from the PSEG property are described in Section 
3.2.2.2. HCGS and SGS are interconnected with the regional power grid via four transmission 
lines extending to the Red Lion substation in Delaware and the New Freedom substation in New 
Jersey as part of the PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM) power grid. PSEG has evaluated 
transmission requirements, and a new offsite transmission line may be needed, dependent upon 
the specific reactor technology selected and other transmission projects planned within the PJM 
regional transmission system. 

Electric shock resulting from direct access to energized conductors or from induced charges in 
metallic structures is an example of an acute effect from EMF associated with transmission lines 
(NRC 1996-TN288). Objects near transmission lines can become electrically charged by close 
proximity to the electric field of the line. An induced current can be generated in such cases, 
where the current can flow from the line through the object into the ground. Capacitive charges 
can occur in objects that are in the electric field of a line, storing the electric charge, but 
insulated from the ground. A person standing on the ground can receive an electric shock from 
coming into contact with such an object because of the sudden discharge of the electrical 
charge through the person’s body to the ground. Such acute effects are controlled and 
minimized by conformance with the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) of the Organization 
of PJM States, Inc. (OPSI), which organizes the statutory regulatory agencies in the 13 states 
and the District of Columbia where PJM operates transmission systems. 

Long-term or chronic exposure to power transmission lines have been studied for a number of 
years. These health effects were evaluated in NUREG-1437, which concluded 


November 2015 


2-189 


NUREG-2168 


Affected Environment 


“The chronic effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) associated with nuclear 
plants and associated transmission lines are uncertain. Studies of 60-Hz EMFs 
have not uncovered consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field 
exposures. EMFs are unlike other agents that have a toxic effect (e.g., toxic 
chemicals and ionizing radiation) in that dramatic acute effects cannot be forced 
and longer-term effects, if real, are subtle. Because the state of the science is 
currently inadequate, no generic conclusion on human health impacts is 
possible” (NRC 1996-TN288). 

2.11 Radiological Environment 

A radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) has been conducted around HCGS 
and SGS since operations began in 1977 (SGS Unit 1), 1981 (SGS Unit 2), and 1986 (HCGS). 
This program measures radiation and radioactive materials from all sources, including the SGS 
Unit 1 and SGS Unit 2 PWRs and the HCGS Unit 1 BWR. The REMP includes the following 
exposure pathways: direct (dosimeters), airborne (iodine and particulates), waterborne (surface 
water and groundwater, drinking water, and sediment), and ingestion (milk, vegetation, fish, and 
invertebrates). A pre-operational environmental monitoring program was conducted from 1973 
to 1976 to establish a baseline to observe fluctuations of radioactivity in the environment after 
operations began (PSEG 2015-TN4280). After routine operation of SGS Unit 1 started in 1977, 
SGS Unit 2 started in 1981, and HCGS started in 1986, the monitoring program continued to 
assess the radiological impacts to workers, the public, and the environment. The results of this 
monitoring are documented in the annual environmental operating report for HCGS and SGS 
titled 2011 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report for the Salem and Hope Creek 
Generating Stations (PSEG 2012-TN2724). Administrative controls and physical barriers are in 
place to monitor and minimize dose from the operational independent spent fuel storage 
installation (ISFSI). 

During an 8-year period from 2004 to 2012, PSEG reported the annual direct radiation exposure 
(annual thermoluminescent dosimeter [TLD] readings) at the three conservative locations close 
to unrestricted areas ranged from 41.2 to 63.0 mrem for the existing PSEG Site 
(PSEG 2005-TN2725; PSEG 2006-TN2726; PSEG 2007-TN2728; PSEG 2008-TN2747; 

PSEG 2009-TN2730; PSEG 2010-TN2737; PSEG 2011-TN2738; PSEG 2012-TN2724). 
Trending graphs in the 2012 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report show the annual total 
body doses due to liquid and gaseous effluents from SGS and HCGS released in the years 
2007 to 2012 were equal to or less than approximately 0.16 mrem (liquid) and equal to or less 
than 0.011 mrem (gaseous) (PSEG 2012-TN2724). 

As part of the REMP, PSEG evaluated the maximum dose to a member of the public each year 
using effluent concentration and historical meteorological data for the existing PSEG Site. For 
the 8 years reviewed, the maximum annual total body doses to a member of the public from 
operation of SGS Units 1 and 2 and HCGS Unit 1 were approximately 1.13 mrem/yr inside the 
site boundary (2006) and 0.99 mrem/yr outside the site boundary (2005) (PSEG 2006-TN2726; 
PSEG 2007-TN2728). These data show that doses to the maximally exposed individuals 
around the existing PSEG Site were a small fraction of the limits specified in Federal 
environmental radiation standards (10 CFR Part 20-TN283; 10 CFR Part 50-TN249; Appendix I; 
and 40 CFR Part 190-TN739). 


NUREG-2168 


2-190 


November 2015 


Affected Environment 


In September 2002, SGS personnel found evidence of contaminated water leakage through a 
wall into the Unit 1 Auxiliary Building Mechanical Penetration Room (NRC 2006-TN1000). Upon 
further investigation, it was determined that the contamination was due to SGS Unit 1 Spent 
Fuel Pool water that had leaked into a narrow seismic gap between SGS Unit 1 Auxiliary 
Building and SGS Unit 1 Fuel Handling Building and then had entered the Mechanical 
Penetration Room. The root cause for the leakage was determined to be the drain system for 
the SGS Unit 1 spent fuel pool: the drain system had become obstructed, resulting in a buildup 
of contaminated water between the spent fuel pool liner and the concrete structure. This water 
then migrated through a wall and penetrations. 

As discussed in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Lessons Learned Task Force 
Report{ NRC 2006-TN1000) and PSEG’s ER (PSEG 2015-TN4280), the SGS Unit 1 licensee 
(PSEG) initiated several actions to remediate and monitor the migration of spent fuel pool water 
to the groundwater, such as 

• initiated drilling wells; 

• identified tritium contamination in nonpotable groundwater near the SGS Unit 1 fuel handling 
building in February 2003; 

• initiated an extensive groundwater sampling program to fully characterize the contamination 
(maximum tritium levels of 15,000,000 pCi/L were identified in the groundwater near the 
seismic gap); 

• established in 2004, in conjunction with the State of New Jersey, the Remedial Investigation 
Work Plan, an extensive groundwater remediation program that includes ongoing 
remediation of the seismic gap (PSEG 2015-TN4280); and 

• by December 2005, extracted about 1.6 Ci of tritium with approximately 2 to 4 Ci remaining 
to be extracted. 

PSEG’s evaluations did not identify any immediate health and safety consequences to onsite 
workers or members of the public (NRC 2006-TN1000). No contamination is believed to have 
migrated to any populated unrestricted areas. PSEG assumed that the tritium has reached the 
Delaware River, calculated the resultant exposure, and included the results in the liquid effluent 
data of the 2013 annual effluent release report (PSEG 2014-TN4219). The resulting annual 
quantity of tritium estimated to have reached the Delaware River from this tritium plume of 
approximately 0.08 Ci is a small fraction of the annual radioactive liquid effluent release of 
tritium of approximately 700 Ci from SGS Unit 1 and 2 and HCGS for 2013 (PSEG 2014- 
TN4219; PSEG 2014-TN4220). The remediation efforts have created an in-gradient of water, 
causing the shallow groundwater to flow toward the plant instead of offsite. No other plant- 
related radionuclides have been identified in the groundwater. 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Lessons Learned Task Force Report (NRC 2006) 
made recommendations regarding potential unmonitored groundwater contamination at U.S. 
nuclear plants. In response to that report, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) developed the 
Ground Water Protection Initiative (NEI 2007-TN1913). Based on the NEI guidance, PSEG 
initiated the RGPP in 2006 (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The status of the RGPP was reported in 
PSEG’s annual Radiological Environmental Operating Reports through 2011 and is now 


November 2015 


2-191 


NUREG-2168 



Affected Environment 


included as Appendix C of PSEG’s Annual Radiological Effluent Release Reports to fully comply 
with the NEI guidance (PSEG 2015-TN4280). While approximately 15 RGPP wells had 
occasional tritium levels above the lower limit of detection of approximately 300 pCi/L (PSEG 
2015-TN4280), the detected tritium concentrations were far below the EPA DWS of 20,000 
pCi/L (41 FR 28402-TN2746). 

2.12 Related Federal Projects and Consultation 

This section describes Federal activities within the 50-mi region that could warrant consideration 
along with the building and operation of a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site as part of a 
cumulative impacts analysis in accordance with 40 CFR 1508.25 (TN428). This section does 
not include a description of the existing HCGS and SGS, as the environmental effects of these 
facilities and their ongoing operations are included as part of the baseline conditions 
characterized earlier in this chapter. Relevant information regarding the operations of the 
existing HCGS and SGS plants is discussed further in the cumulative impact analysis in Chapter 
7 of this EIS. The NRC is required under NEPA Section 102(2)(c) to consult with and obtain 
comments of any Federal agency that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to 
any environmental impact involved in the subject matter of this EIS. The NRC is consulting with 
the NMFS, FWS, and ACHP. Consultation correspondence is listed in Appendix F. In addition, 
the NRC is cooperating with the USACE in the preparation of the EIS. 

According to the guidance in NUREG-1555 (NRC 2000-TN614), Federal project activities 
meeting the following criteria should be identified and described: 

• project activities related to the acquisition and/or use of the site and transmission corridors 
or of any other offsite property needed for the proposed project, 

• project activities required either to provide an adequate source of plant cooling water or to 
ensure an adequate supply of cooling water over the operating lifetime of the plant, 

• project activities completed as a condition of plant construction or operation, 

• project activities that result in significant new power purchases within the applicant’s service 
area that have been used to justify the need for power, and 

• planned Federal projects that are contingent on the new plant construction and operation. 

There are two Federal project activities identified within the region: 

• the USACE Delaware River Main Channel Deepening and 

• the proposed land exchange between the USACE and PSEG involving a portion of the 
USACE Artificial Island CDF that abuts the northern boundary of the existing PSEG 
property. 

USACE Delaware River Main Channel Deepening 

The USACE actively maintains the Federal shipping/navigation channel in the Delaware River 
and Bay to a depth of approximately 40 ft, specific to the various reaches of the channel. In 
1992, the USACE completed a feasibility study for deepening the Delaware Bay and River main 
channel from 40 to 45 ft. This feasibility study found that the proposed deepening project was 


NUREG-2168 


2-192 


November 2015 




Affected Environment 


environmentally sound, economically justified, and technically feasible. As a result of the 
feasibility study findings, Congress authorized the proposed channel deepening project. Since 
1992, there have been additional authorized modifications to the project. The USACE issued an 
additional supplemental EIS in 1997 (USACE 1997-TN2281) and EAs in 2009 and 2011 
(USACE 2009-TN2663; USACE 2011-TN2262). A Project Partnership Agreement was signed 
by the USACE and the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority in 2008. 

The deepening project would affect a stretch of the Delaware Bay and Delaware River 
extending from the Philadelphia Harbor (including Camden, New Jersey) to the mouth of the 
Delaware Bay. The deepening project follows the existing 40-ft-deep Federal main shipping 
channel alignment. No change is proposed to the existing authorized widths in the straight 
portions of the channel, including the 400-ft-wide channel in Philadelphia Harbor, the 
800-ft-wide channel from the Philadelphia Navy Yard to Bombay Hook, and the 1,000-ft-wide 
channel from Bombay Hook to the mouth of the Delaware Bay. However, 11 of the 16 existing 
bends in the channel will be widened for safer navigation. In addition, the Marcus Hook 
Anchorage will be deepened to 45 ft (USACE 1997-TN2281; USACE 2009-TN2663; 

USACE 2011-TN2262). 

The USACE estimates that 16 million yd 3 of material may be dredged as part of this project. 

The dredged material from the river portion will be placed within existing Federal upland CDFs 
in New Jersey and Delaware (USACE 2011-TN2262). 

Project activities in the vicinity of a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site include deepening 
the main channel and widening two bends on the Delaware side of the river. Following the 
completion of the deepening project, normal channel maintenance dredging operations will help 
ensure the new channel configuration. The discharge and intake structures for a new nuclear 
power plant at the PSEG Site would not be located in areas that will be dredged by the USACE 
as part of its deepening project and/or impact the Federal shipping/navigation channel. 

The environmental impacts of the deepening project and associated follow up maintenance 
dredging are discussed as part of cumulative impacts in Chapter 7 of this EIS. 

Proposed Land Exchange Between the USACE and PSEG 

The USACE owns approximately 305 ac of land north of the existing PSEG property that are 
used as a CDF for dredge material from Delaware River channel maintenance operations. This 
CDF, known as the Artificial Island CDF, is composed of three cells, and the southernmost cell 
abuts the northern boundary of the existing PSEG property. This cell is used intermittently and 
currently consists of fill material that is overgrown by common exotic, invasive reed (Phragmites 
australis ) (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

PSEG has developed a plant layout for a new nuclear power plant that would use this previously 
disturbed CDF and limited adjoining marsh areas as part of its plant facility and construction 
area. PSEG has developed an agreement in principle with the USACE to acquire an additional 
85 ac immediately north of HCGS (see Section 2.2 and Figure 2-2). Therefore, with the land 
acquisition, the entire PSEG Site would be 819 ac. Subsequent to the agreement in principle 
with the USACE, PSEG would develop a lease agreement for an additional 45 ac of USACE 


November 2015 


2-193 


NUREG-2168 



Affected Environment 


CDF land north of the PSEG Site for the concrete batch plant and temporary construction/ 
laydown use. At the completion of construction, the 45 ac of leased land would be returned 
to the USACE, subject to any required long-term EAB control conditions (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280). The environmental impacts of the PSEG land acquisition and lease from the 
USACE are assessed as part of cumulative impacts in Chapter 7 of this EIS. 


NUREG-2168 


2-194 


November 2015 


3.0 SITE LAYOUT AND PLANT PARAMETER ENVELOPE 


The PSEG Power, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear, LLC (PSEG) Site for which an early site permit 
(ESP) application has been submitted is located adjacent to the existing Hope Creek 
Generating Station (HCGS) and Salem Generating Station (SGS) Units 1 and 2, in Lower 
Alloways Creek Township, Salem County, New Jersey. The PSEG Site is located on the 
southern part of Artificial Island on the east bank of the Delaware River, about 15 mi south of 
the Delaware Memorial Bridge; 18 mi south of Wilmington, Delaware; 30 mi southwest of 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and 7.5 mi southwest of Salem, New Jersey. 

Of the 819-ac PSEG Site, PSEG owns 734 ac as part of the existing HCGS/SGS site. PSEG 
has developed an agreement in principle with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to 
acquire through a land exchange an additional 85 ac of the USACE Artificial Island Confined 
Disposal Facility (CDF) land immediately north of HCGS. Therefore, with the land acquisition, 
the PSEG Site would total 819 ac. Also, during plant construction PSEG would temporarily 
lease from the USACE 45 ac of the CDF land north of the proposed site as the location of the 
concrete batch plant and a construction/laydown area. 

This chapter describes the approach PSEG used to identify the key plant parameters and site 
characteristics needed to assess the environmental impacts of the proposed action 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). The external appearance and plant layout are discussed in Section 3.1; 
plant parameters and construction and preconstruction activities are discussed in Sections 3.2 
and 3.3, respectively; and operational activities are discussed in Section 3.4. 

3.1 External Appearance and Site Layout 

The PSEG Site is located adjacent to the existing HCGS and SGS, Units 1 and 2 (Figures 2-2 
and Figure 3-1). The site is located on the southern part of Artificial Island on the east bank of 
the Delaware River in Lower Alloways Creek Township, Salem County, New Jersey. Artificial 
Island was created, beginning early in the 20th century, when the USACE began disposing of 
hydraulic dredge spoils within a progressively enlarged diked area established around a natural 
bar that projected into the river. The existing HCGS/SGS site is generally developed, and 
surrounding habitats are best characterized as tidal marsh and grassland. Figure 3-1 provides 
an aerial photograph of the existing PSEG property, and the PSEG Site is located in the 
undeveloped area to the left of the HCGS unit and cooling tower in the figure. 

SGS consists of two pressurized water reactors (PWRs), each with a rated power level of 
3,459 MW(t) generating capacity. Unit 1 began producing electricity in 1976, and Unit 2 began 
producing electricity in 1980. HCGS is located just north of SGS and has a single 3,840 MW(t) 
boiling water reactor (BWR) nuclear plant. HCGS was originally designed as a two-unit plant, 
but during the construction phase the project was scaled back to one unit. HCGS began 
operation in 1986. 


November 2015 


3-1 


NUREG-2168 


Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope 



NUREG-2168 


3-2 


November 2015 


Figure 3-1. Existing Salem Generating Station and Hope Creek Generating Station Site (Source: Modified by staff from 
PSEG 2015-TN4280) 












Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope 


The existing PSEG property totals 734 ac, of which 373 ac are used for HCGS (153 ac) and 
SGS (220 ac). The minimum distance from the SGS reactor containment buildings to the 
nearest exclusion area boundary (EAB) formed by land is 1,270 m (4,166 ft). The minimum 
distance from the HCGS accident release point to the nearest EAB formed by land is 900 m 
(2,953 ft). 

Both SGS units have steel-lined concrete containment vessels consisting of a reinforced 
concrete cylindrical wall, a hemispherical dome, and a reinforced concrete base. Supporting 
structures include a common auxiliary building, service building, turbine generator building, 
administration building, circulating and service water intake structures, station switchyard, and 
separate fuel handling buildings for each unit. 

The HCGS primary containment is a steel shell enclosed in reinforced concrete interconnected 
to a torus type steel suppression chamber. Supporting structures for HCGS include an auxiliary 
building, turbine building, administration building and warehouse, service water intake structure, 
switchyard, and natural draft cooling tower (NDCT). 

The PSEG Site is located adjacent to HCGS and SGS. A new nuclear power plant would 
require about 225 ac as delineated in the PSEG Site Utilization Plan, included in this 
environmental impact statement (EIS) as Figure 2-2. As discussed in Section 3.0, PSEG has 
developed an agreement with the USACE to acquire an additional 85 ac directly north of the 
current PSEG property line. Therefore, with the existing 734 ac and the 85-ac land acquisition, 
the PSEG Site would total 819 ac. 

For purposes of the ESP application, a specific plant design has not been selected; instead, 
a set of plant parameter values was chosen for the staff evaluation of the development of the 
PSEG Site. This plant parameter envelope (PPE) is based on the addition of one or two new 
power generating units. Table 1-2 in Appendix I of this EIS lists the PPE values used by the 
staff. PSEG states that the reactor types considered in developing the PPE are the Advanced 
Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR), Advanced Passive 1000 (API000), U.S. Evolutionary Power 
Reactor (U.S. EPR), and U.S. Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor (US-APWR) (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280). 

This EIS analyzes the environmental impacts at the PSEG Site of building and operating a 
surrogate reactor derived from the parameters of four reactor technologies: U.S. EPR, ABWR, 
US-APWR, or API000. Because a specific reactor technology has not been selected, the 
environmental impact analyses in this EIS are based on reactor bounding conditions derived 
from detailed reactor information supplied by the vendors to PSEG and not on any specific 
reactor design. For this EIS, the total bounding PPE value for the new plant is 
6,830 gross MW(t) (dual unit) and 2,200 MW(e) (dual unit). 

The proposed plant location and layout on the PSEG Site are shown in the PSEG Site 
Utilization Plan (Figure 2-2). The EAB minimum distance of 600 m (1,970 ft) is measured from 
the perimeter of the power block envelope. The PSEG Site Utilization Plan was prepared by 
first establishing site layouts for each of the four reactor technology configurations considered 
for the site. The primary power generation areas (e.g., power block area, switchyard, and 
cooling tower area) would be located in the same general area on the site for each layout 


November 2015 


3-3 


NUREG-2168 


Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope 


considered. Once the layouts were established, the bounding footprint for each specific area 
(e.g., power block area) was developed by determining the maximum east/west and north/south 
dimensions. For example, to define the power block area, the east/west dimension of the U.S. 
EPR and north/south dimension of the dual unit API 000 were used to establish the power block 
rectangle area. This approach provides a bounding estimate of overall land use on the PSEG 
Site. 

Permanent land impact is indicated on the PSEG Site Utilization Plan in Figure 2-2 as a 
crosshatched area. The land that would be used during construction is indicated by diagonal 
hatching. The specific areas used for permanent and construction support features would not 
be defined until after a reactor technology is selected but would be within the overall established 
PSEG Site Utilization Plan boundary. 

The new plant power block structure height would vary depending upon the reactor design 
chosen. The bounding structure height (excluding any cooling towers) from finished grade to 
the top of the tallest power block structure would be 234 ft. 

The new plant circulating water system (CWS) would include one or two natural draft, 
mechanical draft, or fan-assisted natural draft wet cooling towers. The new plant would also 
include smaller mechanical draft cooling towers for service water system (SWS) cooling. Water 
from the Delaware River would be used for makeup water for the cooling water systems. The 
new river intake and discharge structures are described in Section 3.2.2.1. 

Existing infrastructure would be modified to integrate a new nuclear power plant with the 
existing HCGS/SGS units; however, none of the existing unit structures or facilities that directly 
support power generation would be shared or modified. As described in Section 3.2.2.3, 
depending on the reactor technology selected, up to two new switchyards would be required for 
a new nuclear power plant, and the existing onsite transmission lines would be modified as 
required to incorporate the new generation capacity into the electric grid. One new offsite 
transmission line may be required depending on future studies by the regional transmission 
organization, PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM). The existing security perimeter would be 
expanded to include a new plant. The existing sewage treatment facility, training and 
administrative buildings, warehouses, and other support facilities would be used, expanded, or 
replaced to support a new plant based on economic and operational considerations. 

During construction, the laydown area and temporary construction support facilities would 
require 205 ac. After new plant construction is complete, areas used for construction support 
would be restored where appropriate to match the overall site appearance or used for other 
necessary site or industrial support purposes. These areas include equipment laydown and 
module fabrication areas, batch plant area, areas around completed structures, and 
construction parking. 

3.2 Plant Parameter Envelope 

An applicant for an ESP need not provide a detailed design of a reactor or reactors and the 
associated facilities but should provide sufficient values for parameters for the reactor or 
reactors and the associated facilities so that an assessment of site suitability can be made. 


NUREG-2168 


3-4 


November 2015 


Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope 


Consequently, the ESP application may refer to a PPE as a surrogate for a nuclear power plant 
and its associated facilities. 

A PPE is a set of values for plant design parameters that an ESP applicant expects would 
bound the design characteristics of the reactor or reactors that might be constructed at a given 
site. The PPE values are surrogates for actual reactor design information. The analysis is 
based on the values in the PPE and not on any specific reactor design. Analysis of 
environmental impacts based on a PPE approach permits an ESP applicant to defer the 
selection of a reactor design until the construction permit (CP) or combined construction permit 
and operating license (combined license or COL) stage. The PPE reflects the value of each 
parameter that it encompasses rather than the characteristics of any specific reactor design. 

For purposes of the ESP application, PSEG is using a PPE approach that includes plant design 
parameters derived from four different reactor technologies (i.e., API 000, U.S. EPR, ABWR, 
and US-APWR). 

This EIS analyzes the environmental impacts of the PPE surrogate derived from the four reactor 
technologies using either one unit (U.S. EPR, ABWR, or US-APWR) or two units (API 000) at 
the PSEG Site. PSEG would not be required to use any of these designs if it elected to proceed 
with a CP or COL application. For example, PSEG could reference one of the large light water 
reactors listed above or a small modular reactor (SMR) such as the Holtec SMR-160 (1) or any 
other reactor design. However, a CP or COL applicant referencing an ESP would have to 
address whether the characteristics of the reactor ultimately selected fell within the values of the 
design parameters specified in the ESP. 

Review Approach 

NUREG-1555, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants: 
Environmental Standard Review Plan (ESRP) (NRC 2000-TN614), and review standard 
RS-002. Processing Applications for Early Site Permits (NRC 2004-TN2219), provide guidance 
to the staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to help ensure a thorough, 
consistent, and disciplined review of any ESP application. The staffs June 23, 2003, response 
to comments received on draft RS-002 (NRC 2003-TN2064) provides additional insights into the 
staffs approach to the review of an application using the PPE approach. 

Because PPE values were used as a surrogate for design-specific values, the staff expected 
PSEG to provide information sufficient for the staff to develop a reasonable independent 
assessment of potential impacts to specific environmental resources. In some cases, the 
design-specific information called for in the ESRP (NRC 2000-TN614) was not provided in the 
PSEG ESP application because it did not exist or was not available. Therefore, the NRC staff 
could not apply the ESRP guidance in those review areas. In such cases, the NRC staff used 
its experience and judgment to adapt the review guidance in the ESRP and to develop 
assumptions necessary to evaluate impacts to certain environmental resources to account for 


(1) The review team is aware that PSEG is providing technical support to Holtec International 

(Holtec International 2013-TN2807). However, this information is not material to the review of the 
ESP application because the review is based on PPE values rather than a specific reactor design. 


November 2015 


3-5 


NUREG-2168 



Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope 


this missing information. These assumptions are discussed in the appropriate sections of this 
EIS and are summarized in Appendix J of this EIS. 

Because the PSEG PPE values do not reflect a specific design, they were reviewed for 
reasonableness. The NRC staff made a determination that the application was sufficient to 
enable the staff to conduct its required environmental review and that the PPE values are not 
unreasonable for consideration by the staff when making its finding on the application in 
accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 52.18 (TN251). During 
its environmental review, the staff used its judgment to determine whether PSEG provided 
information sufficient for the staff to perform its independent assessment of the environmental 
impacts of construction and operation of a new nuclear power plant. PSEG expects that the 
PPE values will bound the design characteristics of a reactor or reactors that might be 
constructed at the PSEG Site. At the COL stage, as required by 10 CFR 52.79 (TN251), the 
applicant must, in addition to the information and analysis otherwise required, submit 
information sufficient to demonstrate that the design of the facility falls within the parameters 
specified in the ESP. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.92(e)(7) (TN250), the COL supplemental 
EIS must analyze new and significant information demonstrating that the design of the facility 
falls outside the design parameters specified in the ESP. 

Tables 3.3-1, 3.4-1, and 3.4-2 from the PSEG Environmental Report (ER) (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280) and Table 1.3-1 from the PSEG Site Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) (PSEG 2015- 
TN4283) provide information from various reactor designs that were used to develop the 
bounding site-specific PPE values. The PPE values provided in these tables are used in the 
staffs analysis and are reproduced in Appendix I of the EIS unless specifically noted otherwise. 

Throughout the PSEG ER (PSEG 2015-TN4280), PSEG provides 

• statements of plans to address certain issues in the design, construction, and operation of 
the facility; 

• statements of planned compliance with current laws, regulations, and requirements; 

• statements of plans for future activities and actions that it will take should it decide to apply 
for a CP or COL; 

• descriptions of the PSEG estimate of the environmental impacts resulting from the 
construction and operation of a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site; and 

• descriptions of PSEG estimates of future activities and actions of others and the likely 
environmental impacts of those activities and actions that would be expected should PSEG 
decide to apply for a CP or COL. 

The activities described include, but are not limited to, actions such as the following: 

• considering the results of testing and monitoring during the development of a CP or COL 
application; 

• complying with the NRC regulations and those of other agencies, including obtaining 
appropriate permits from other agencies; 


NUREG-2168 


3-6 


November 2015 


Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope 


• taking actions to mitigate adverse environmental impacts (e.g., best management practices); 
and 

• addressing certain issues at the CP or COL stage that were not addressed in the ESP 
application. 

Some of these future actions are those that PSEG would be required to implement because 
they are currently required by law, and others are actions that PSEG has indicated that it would 
implement without the legal obligation to take such actions. 

As discussed previously, the staff developed assumptions necessary to evaluate impacts to 
certain environmental resources to account for missing detailed information. In addition to other 
sources of information obtained independently, the staff considered future activities and actions, 
estimates of expected environmental impacts that were identified in the PSEG ER (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280), and the PPE values listed in Appendix I of this EIS when developing the inputs and 
assumptions used in the NRC staff s independent review of the environmental impacts of 
constructing and operating a new plant at the PSEG Site. 

3.2.1 Plant Water Use 

This EIS assesses the impacts of plant water use based on the values of design parameters 
provided in the PSEG ER (PSEG 2015-TN4280). At the ESP stage, the staff s review of the 
design parameters is limited to an evaluation of whether the parameter values are not 
unreasonable. At the CP or COL stage, a CP or COL applicant referencing the ESP is required 
to demonstrate that the specific plant design would fall within the design parameters in the ESP. 
The following sections describe both the consumptive and nonconsumptive water uses of a new 
nuclear power plant and the associated plant water treatment systems. 

Water would be required to support a new nuclear power plant during construction and 
operation, including the cooling water systems for plant auxiliary components (e.g., SWS) and 
makeup water for the ultimate heat sink (UHS) cooling system. The majority of the water would 
be withdrawn from the Delaware River via an intake structure. The bounding cooling water 
systems flows were determined for site-specific Delaware River water quality and PSEG Site 
meteorological conditions, and the bounding SWS flows were modified for site-specific river 
water quality. The freshwater aquifer would supply water for general site purposes including the 
potable and sanitary water system (PSWS), demineralized water distribution system (DWDS), 
fire protection system (FPS), and other miscellaneous systems. 

3.2. 7.7 Plant Water Consumption 

The average and maximum water consumption and discharge by the various cooling and other 
water systems is given in Table 3-1. This includes maximum and average makeup water flow 
rates, evaporation rates, drift rates, and blowdown rates for the CWS and SWS and water 
supply for the PSWS, DWDS, and FPS. Also included is the discharge flow rate for applicable 
systems, including miscellaneous drains and liquid radwaste. The average values are the 
expected limiting values for normal plant operation, and the maximum values are those 
expected for upset or abnormal conditions. The makeup water supply source for the CWS and 
the SWS/UHS is the Delaware River. For the PSWS, DWDS, FPS, and other miscellaneous 
systems, plant makeup flows are from an onsite freshwater aquifer. The blowdown and 


November 2015 


3-7 


NUREG-2168 



Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope 


discharge water flow is discharged to the Delaware River. Figure 3-2 provides a water balance 
diagram. The total intake from the Delaware River would be 78,196 gpm (average) and 
80,600 gpm (maximum). The total intake from the freshwater aquifer would be 210 gpm 
(average) and 953 gpm (maximum). 


Table 3-1. Plant Water Use 



Average Flow 

Maximum Flow (a) 

PPE Item 

System 

(gpm) 

(gpm) 

(SSAR Table 1.3-1) 


River Water Streams 


Circulating Water System 


Evaporation 

25,264 

25,264 

2.4.7, 2.5.7, 2.6.7 

Drifts 

12 

12 

2.4.17, 2.5.17, 2.6.17 

Makeup 

75,792 

75,792 

2.4.9, 2.5.9, 2.6.9 

Blowdown 

50,516 

50,516 

2.4.4, 2.5.4, 2.6.4 

Service Water/UHS System 

Evaporation 

1,142 

2,284 

3.3.7a and 3.3.7b 

Drifts 

2 

4 

3.3.17 

Makeup (before filter) 

2,404 

4,808 

3.3.9a and 3.3.9b 

Makeup (after filter) 

2,284 

4,568 

(d) 

Blowdown 

1,140 

2,280 

3.3.4a and 3.3.4b 

Makeup Filter Backwash 

120 

240 

(d) 

UHS Makeup (emergency only) 

4,568 

4,568 

(d) 

Freshwater Aquifer Streams 

Plant Makeup 

PSWS Makeup 

93 

216 

5.2.2 and 5.2.1 

DWDS Makeup 

107 

107 

6.2.2 and 6.2.1 

FPS Makeup 

5 

625 

7.1.2 and 7.1.1 

Floor Wash Drain Makeup 

5 

5 

8.2.2 and 8.2.1 

Discharge Streams 

Plant Blowdown 

PSWS Blowdown 

93 

93 

5.1.1 and 5.1.2 

DWDS Blowdown 

27 

27 

6.1.1 

Misc. Drains Blowdown 

39 

55 

8.1.1 and 8.1.2 

Liquid Radwaste Flow 

11 

11 

10.2.1 

Combined Plant Blowdown (includes 

51,946 

53,222 

(d) 


CWS blowdown, SWS/UHS 
blowdown, SWS/UHS makeup filter 
backwash, and plant blowdown) 

(a) These flows are not necessarily concurrent. 

(b) The cooling tower drifts are 0.001% of the tower circulating water flow. 

(c) The cooling tower drifts are <0.005% of the tower circulating water flow. 

(d) Values shown on Figure 3-2. 

Source: PSEG 2015-TN4280; PSEG 2015-TN4283. 


NUREG-2168 


3-8 


November 2015 







Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope 



Figure 3-2. Plant Water Use (Source: Modified by staff from PSEG 2015-TN4280) 

The CWS and SWS/UHS cooling towers would lose water from evaporation, blowdown, and 
drift. Evaporation, blowdown, and drift estimates for the CWS and SWS/UHS cooling towers 
are shown in Table 3-1. Cooling tower performance curves have not yet been generated; thus a 
single design point is used to determine CWS parameters. The normal operating design point 
for the cooling tower is based on a 1 percent maximum annual non-coincident wet bulb 
temperature of 76.6°F. No seasonal variability is evaluated in the water consumption values 
presented. Seasonal variability in wet and dry bulb temperature and relative humidity results in 
changes to cold water temperature, system flow rates, and, ultimately, evaporation rates from 
the cooling tower. Historically, the NDCT that provides heat dissipation for the HCGS CWS 
produces higher evaporation rates in the summer months than the winter months. The design 
point noted above is representative of a 1 percent exceedance summer condition at the PSEG 
Site. As such, the normal operating design values presented for water use at the new plant are 
conservative when considered from an annual use perspective. 

The combined plant blowdown would consist of CWS blowdown, SWS/UHS blowdown, PSWS 
blowdown, DWDS blowdown, miscellaneous drain blowdowns, liquid radwaste blowdown, and 
SWS/UHS makeup filter backwash. The combined plant blowdown flows would discharge into 
the Delaware River at a flow rate of 51,946 gpm (average) and 53,222 gpm (maximum). 

The CWS functions as the heat sink for normal plant processes and is essential to power 
generation. It provides a continuous supply of cooling water from the normal plant heat sink to 


November 2015 


3-9 


NUREG-2168 


































































Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope 


the main condensers to remove the heat rejected by the turbine cycle. The main condenser 
receives exhaust steam from the turbines and cooled water is pumped from the cooling tower 
through the main condenser and back to the cooling tower, where heat is rejected to the 
atmosphere by evaporation. The CWS also accommodates heat loads associated with turbine 
auxiliary equipment. 

For those plant designs (i.e., ABWR, US-APWR, U.S. EPR) that use active safety-related SWS 
and UHS cooling towers, the SWS provides essential cooling to safety-related equipment and 
may also cool non-safety-related auxiliary components used for normal plant operation. It 
removes heat from plant components by providing cooling water flow during normal operation, 
during safe shutdown of the reactor, and following a design basis accident. Cooling water from 
the UHS cooling towers is provided to the component cooling water system heat exchangers, 
emergency diesel generator heat exchangers, and pump room coolers that are necessary for 
normal safe shutdown and cooldown, anticipated operational events, and accident conditions. 
The API000 design does not require an active external safety-related UHS system to reach 
safe shutdown. It uses a non-safety-related SWS to accommodate plant heat loads. 

Additional plant systems require freshwater. The PSWS supplies water needed for plant 
operation, including potable water, sanitary water, and miscellaneous systems. The DWDS 
supplies makeup water of reactor coolant quality and treated water for other station operating 
requirements, including reactor coolant makeup. The FPS supplies water to the wet system 
type fire suppression systems. 

Plant water use during construction activities would require freshwater for potable and sanitary 
use, concrete mixing and curing, and dust control. The total freshwater requirement for 
construction would be 171,932 gpd or 119 gpm. Of this, the sanitary discharge would be 
123,000 gpd or 85 gpm. The remainder of the supply would be consumed. These construction 
flows are bounded by the higher total freshwater requirements and potable and sanitary flows 
during operation. 

3.2.1.2 Plant Water Treatment 

Treatment systems are required for systems supplied by surface water and groundwater, 
including circulating water makeup, reactor water makeup, service water makeup, condensate, 
potable water, radwaste, and fire protection. The majority of the water would be withdrawn from 
the Delaware River via the intake structure. The intake structure would be located at Delaware 
River River Mile (RM) 52, situated in the tidal estuary zone of the Delaware River, where it 
would be subject to tidal saltwater intrusion, and at the turbidity maxima on the Delaware River. 
The water is hard and brackish with elevated levels of total dissolved solids and chlorides, 
elevated levels of both calcium and magnesium, and moderately high suspended solids levels. 

The source of raw water makeup for the CWS would be the Delaware River. Sulfuric acid would 
be used to control calcite scale as required, and acid addition would maintain a slightly alkaline 
pH level. This is typical when using tidal estuary water makeup and is consistent with the 
operational experience at the adjacent HCGS. The combination of low cycles of concentration 
and acid addition would be used so that other scale inhibitors would not be needed. 

Chlorination would control microbial growth in the piping and condenser to prevent biofouling 


NUREG-2168 


3-10 


November 2015 


Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope 


and microbiological deposits. Sodium hypochlorite solution would be used to control biofouling 
and would be limited by New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) permit 
requirements. Dechlorination of CWS cooling tower blowdown may be required by the NJPDES 
permit. A sodium bisulfite solution or equivalent would be injected as necessary to react with 
residual chlorine before discharge. 

The source of raw water makeup for the SWS/UHS would be the Delaware River. The river 
water would be treated to remove suspended solids by settling in clarifiers. The influent would 
be coagulated and flocculated with polyelectrolyte addition to increase sedimentation rates and 
improve effluent quality. Settled sludge would be dewatered for disposal using mechanical 
dewatering facilities or in a managed impoundment. Media filters, downstream of the clarifiers, 
and filter backwash may be used to provide additional suspended solids removal. More 
comprehensive chemical treatment would be provided for the SWS/UHS. The river water would 
require control of calcite scale and control of iron and sediment deposition. Treatment 
chemicals would include sulfuric acid, an additional blended deposit control agent, and an 
oxidizing biocide. Sulfuric acid would be used for pH reduction to aid in calcium carbonate scale 
control. A deposit control agent would be used to control calcium carbonate scaling, to protect 
against calcium phosphate scaling, and to control silt and iron deposition. Sodium hypochlorite 
solution would be used to control biofouling. Dechlorination of SWS/UHS cooling tower 
blowdown may be required by the NJPDES permit. A sodium bisulfite solution or equivalent 
would be injected as necessary to react with residual chlorine before discharge. 

The source for plant makeup water for the PSWS, DWDS, FPS, and other miscellaneous 
systems would be the onsite freshwater aquifer. Makeup water for the PSWS and the FPS 
would not be treated. Chlorination would be provided for the PSWS. The DWDS makeup water 
would use a demineralization treatment system such as a dedicated reverse osmosis system to 
reduce solids, salts, organics, and colloids in the treated water. 

3.2.2 Proposed Plant Structures 

This EIS assesses the impacts of proposed plant structures based on the values of design 
parameters provided in the PSEG ER (PSEG 2015-TN4280). At the ESP stage, the staff’s 
review of the design parameters is limited to an evaluation of whether the parameter values are 
not unreasonable. At the CP or COL stage, a CP or COL applicant referencing the ESP is 
required to demonstrate that the specific plant design would fall within the design parameters in 
the ESP. The following sections describe each of the major plant structures: the reactor power 
conversion system, structures that would have a significant interface with the environment 
during operation, and the balance of plant structures. All of these structures are relevant in the 
Chapter 4 discussion of the impacts of building a new nuclear power plant. Only the structures 
that interface with the environment are important to the operational impacts discussed in 
Chapter 5. 

3.2.2 .7 Reactor Po wer Con version System 

This section provides a general discussion of the reactor, engineered safety features (ESFs), 
and the power conversion system. Reactor-specific design parameters such as fuel assembly 
description, core fuel capacity, and condenser total heat transfer area would be provided during 


November 2015 


3-11 


NUREG-2168 



Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope 


the COL application phase following reactor technology selection. Bounding parameters from 
the PPE and site-specific characteristics within the SSAR (PSEG 2015-TN4283) are used to 
establish conceptual reactor descriptions. 

The four reactor types considered for the new plant are the ABWR, the API000, the U.S. EPR, 
and the US-APWR. The API 000 plant consists of two units and associated turbines and power 
conversion equipment, and the ABWR, U.S. EPR, and US-APWR consist of one unit and 
associated turbine and power conversion equipment. The ABWR is a BWR, and the API 000, 
U.S. EPR, and US-APWR are PWRs. The design life for a new facility is 60 years (PSEG 2015- 
TN4283), and the initial licensed operating life is 40 years based on the Atomic Energy Act 
(42 USC 2011 et seq. -TN663) and current regulations. 

The rated thermal power (RTP) of 4,590 MW(t) is the bounding RTP for one unit and 
6,800 MW(t) for two units (PSEG 2015-TN4283). The approximate gross and net electrical 
outputs for one unit are 1,710 MW(e) and 1,600 MW(e), respectively, for the bounding design. 
The bounding design gross and net electrical outputs for two units are about 2,400 MW(e) and 
2,200 MW(e), respectively. 

All proposed reactor designs use uranium as the fissile material. The maximum uranium 
enrichment is 5 weight percent of uranium-235 for the initial fuel load (PSEG 2015-TN4283). 

The maximum average assembly discharge burnup is 54,200 MWd/MTU (PSEG 2015-TN4283). 
The peak fuel rod burnup is 62,000 MWd/MTU (PSEG 2015-TN4283). Each of these values is 
within acceptable NRC limits. 

The proposed reactor designs use active and/or passive types of ESF systems. Active systems 
rely on active components such as pumps to move coolant to the needed locations, while 
passive systems use gravity and thermal convection to achieve equivalent results. Active 
systems are typically powered by redundant power sources such as emergency diesel 
generators or gas turbine generators. Passive systems use gravity to move coolant, and valves 
are typically actuated by safety-related DC power. The selected design would rely on a UHS to 
remove heat from safety-related systems and discharge it to the atmosphere. 

The power conversion system for each of the advanced reactor designs under consideration 
uses a steam turbine to generate power by converting the reactor heat to mechanical energy. 
The turbines reject exhaust heat to the normal plant cooling water system. The tube material for 
the condenser or turbine exhaust cooling heat exchangers has not been selected. 

3.2.2.2 Structures with a Major Environmental Interface 

The NRC staff divided the plant structures into two primary groups: those that interface with the 
environment and those that are internal to the reactor and associated facilities but without direct 
interaction with the environment. Examples of interfaces with the environment are withdrawal of 
water from the environment at the intake structure, release of water to the environment at the 
discharge structure, and release of excess heat to the atmosphere. The structures or locations 
with environmental interfaces are considered in the staffs assessment of the environmental 
impacts of facility construction and preconstruction and facility operation in Chapters 4 and 5, 
respectively. The power-production processes that would occur within the plant itself and that 


NUREG-2168 


3-12 


November 2015 


Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope 


did not affect the environment are not relevant to a National Environmental Policy Act 
(42 USC 4321 et seq. -TN661) review and are not discussed further in this EIS. However, such 
internal processes are considered by the NRC in reactor-specific design certification 
documentation and in the NRC safety review of COL applications. 

Cooling Water System 

The cooling water system for the new plant would consist of a CWS and an SWS. The CWS 
would provide cooling water for the normal heat sink that would consist of a closed-loop system 
composed of wet cooling towers, water pumps, and cooling tower basins. The circulating water 
flow rate for the bounding CWS configuration is 1.2 million gpm. The CWS heat dissipation 
would be 1.508 x 10 10 Btu/hr. The CWS cooling towers would use mechanical draft, natural 
draft, or fan-assisted natural draft design. The cooling towers would be located north of the 
power block area of the plant in a 50-ac area (Figure 2-2). The CWS makeup water average 
and maximum flow would be 75,792 gpm, and the CWS blowdown average and maximum flow 
rate would be 50,516 gpm. 

The SWS for the new plant would remove heat from the balance of plant auxiliary equipment 
and heat exchangers that were not cooled by the CWS. All reactor designs being considered by 
PSEG for the site contain an SWS. The SWS for the ABWR. US-APWR, and U.S. EPR designs 
performs both safety and nonsafety cooling, whereas the SWS for the API 000 design only 
performs nonsafety cooling. The SWS design is specific to reactor design but generally 
consists of cooling towers, water pumps, dedicated water basins, and heat exchangers. 

Because PSEG has used a PPE approach, a safety-related SWS using mechanical draft 
cooling towers would be the bounding PPE design in use for the plant. The SWS cooling 
towers would be located in the power block area. The UHS heat removal requirement is 
2.06 * 10 8 Btu/hr during normal conditions, 4.72 * 10 8 Btu/hr during cooldown conditions, and 
3.95 x 10 8 Btu/hr during accident conditions. The SWS makeup water average and maximum 
flow rates would be 2,404 and 4,808 gpm, respectively, and the SWS blowdown average and 
maximum flow rates would be 1,140 and 2,280 gpm, respectively. The UHS makeup water flow 
rate during emergencies would be 4,568 gpm. 

The combined makeup water withdrawal from the Delaware River would average 78,196 gpm 
with a maximum of 80,600 gpm. The combined plant blowdown, including CWS and SWS 
blowdowns, SWS makeup filter backwash, and plant blowdown, would average 51,946 gpm 
with a maximum flow rate of 53,222 gpm. 

Operational Modes 

The CWS would provide cooling functions during the power generation mode. The CWS would 
operate at its maximum heat dissipation capacity because the plant would normally operate at 
100 percent of its thermal rating. 

The SWS would provide cooling functions during power generation, cooldown, refueling, and 
plant startup modes. In addition, the SWS may also provide cooling for the spent fuel pool heat 
load during a full core offload condition. Because the power generation mode uses the most 
makeup water, all other mode water uses are bounded by the power generation mode. 


November 2015 


3-13 


NUREG-2168 



Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope 


Station Capacity Factor 

The annualized capacity factor for the plant would be between 85 and 96.3 percent. These 
values are bounding for the purposes of different analyses performed for the environmental 
review. 

Cooling Water Intake System 

A new makeup water intake structure would be located west of the plant on the Delaware River 
shoreline about 2,800 ft north of the HCGS service water intake structure (Figure 2-2). To meet 
the bounding CWS and SWS combined makeup water demands for the reactor designs being 
considered for the PSEG Site, the intake structure would be about 200 ft wide (facing the 
Delaware River shoreline) and 110 ft deep (extending from the shoreline landward). The 
Delaware River in front of the intake structure would need to be dredged to an elevation of 
-19 ft 10 in. NAVD88 (North American Vertical Datum of 1988) to allow sufficient depth for 
water withdrawal. A bar rack would prevent debris from entering the intake bays, and a trash 
rake would clean the debris accumulated on the bar rack. A traveling screen would prevent 
small debris from reaching farther into the bays. The intake structure bay and screens would be 
sized such that the average intake through-screen velocity would be less than 0.5 fps to meet 
the requirements of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1251 et seq. -TN662) Section 316(b) Phase I 
rule (66 FR 65256-TN243). 

Discharge System 

The plant discharge would consist of CWS and SWS blowdowns, SWS makeup filter backwash, 
and other wastewater streams including those from PSWSs, demineralized water systems, 
miscellaneous drains blowdowns, and liquid radwaste flow. The combined plant discharge 
would average 51,946 gpm with a maximum of 53,222 gpm. An NJPDES permit for the plant 
would specify volumes and constituent concentrations of the plant discharge. 

The discharge system would consist of a 48-in.-diameter pipe located about 8,000 ft north of the 
existing SGS discharge, 2,500 ft north of the existing HCGS discharge, and 1,000 ft north of the 
makeup water intake structure of the plant. The discharge pipe would extend out 100 ft into the 
Delaware River from the shoreline and would rest on a layer of geotextile fabric and granular 
bedding. The outlet of the discharge pipe would be elevated 3 ft above the river bed, and the 
depth of water at the outlet would be 12 ft 10 in. below mean low water. The discharge pipe 
would be overlaid with geotextile fabric and a three-layered granular material for stability. 

Cooling Towers 

The plant would use one or two wet cooling towers to dissipate waste heat. As described 
above, the CWS cooling towers would use mechanical draft, natural draft, or fan-assisted 
natural draft design. Makeup water to offset the losses from evaporation, blowdown, and drift 
would be provided from the Delaware River via the new intake system. Blowdown from the 
cooling towers would be discharged to the Delaware River via the new discharge system. The 
PPE values for the CWS average and maximum evaporation loss are 25,264 gpm and the 
average and maximum drift loss are 12 gpm. 


NUREG-2168 


3-14 


November 2015 






Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope 


As described above, the SWS cooling towers would be a mechanical draft design. Makeup 
water for the SWS cooling towers would also be provided from the Delaware River via the new 
intake system, and blowdown from the towers would be discharged to the Delaware River using 
the new discharge system. The SWS average and maximum evaporation losses would be 
1,142 and 2,284 gpm, respectively, and the average and maximum drift losses would be 2 and 
4 gpm, respectively. 

Water Treatment 


The surface water withdrawn from the Delaware River to offset evaporation, blowdown, and drift 
losses in the cooling system would require treatment. Near the intake structure at Delaware 
River RM 52, the Delaware River is subject to tidal fluctuations and turbidity maxima. The water 
of the Delaware River at this location is hard and brackish and would have elevated levels of 
suspended and total dissolved solids, chlorides, calcium, and magnesium. 

For the CWS, sulfuric acid would be added to the raw water withdrawn from the Delaware River 
to control calcite scale formation. Chlorination would be used to control microbial growth and 
biofouling. Sodium hypochlorite would also be used to control biofouling and would be subject 
to NJPDES permit requirements. The NJPDES permit may also require dechlorination of the 
CWS blowdown before discharge, which may be carried out using a sodium bisulfite solution or 
equivalent to control residual chlorine. 

For the SWS, the raw water withdrawn from the Delaware River would be passed through 
clarifiers to remove suspended solids. The clarifiers may use polyelectrolyte to increase 
coagulation and flocculation. Media filters may be used to remove additional suspended solids 
after the raw water passes through the clarifiers. Sulfuric acid, additional blended deposit 
control agent, and sodium hypochlorite would be used to reduce pH for scaling control, to 
control calcium carbonate and calcium phosphate scaling, and to control biofouling. A sodium 
bisulfite solution or equivalent may be used to control residual chlorine before discharge of the 
blowdown from the SWS cooling towers. 

Plant makeup water to the PSWS, DWDS, FPS, and other miscellaneous uses would be 
provided by onsite freshwater withdrawn from the aquifer. Makeup water for the PSWS and 
FPS would not be treated except for chlorination for the PSWS. Makeup water for the DWDS 
would use a demineralization treatment system such as a reverse osmosis system to reduce 
solids, salts, organics, and colloids from the raw freshwater. 

Power Transmission System 

The new plant would be located adjacent to the existing HCGS and SGS. The electric power 
systems for these existing plants generate and transmit power into the PJM power grid. PJM is 
a regional transmission organization that manages the high voltage power grid and coordinates 
the movement of wholesale electricity in a market that serves 13 states and the District of 
Columbia. 

HCGS and SGS have separate, dedicated switchyards. Both switchyards operate nominally at 
500 kV. The switching station designs at each plant incorporate a breaker-and-a-half scheme 
for high reliability. A new plant switchyard would be required to support new plant operation. 

The new plant switchyard would be electrically integrated with the existing switchyards via a site 


November 2015 


3-15 


NUREG-2168 



Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope 


interposing switchyard to provide 500-kV connections. Electric power generated by the new 
plant would be fed through isolated phase buses to main transformer banks where it would be 
stepped up to 500 kV and delivered to the new plant switchyard. The bounding land use 
required within the PSEG Site for the switchyards is 63 ac (SSAR Table 1.3-1, Item 15.1.1 
[PSEG 2015-TN4283]). The PSEG Site Utilization Plan shown in Figure 2-2 depicts the relative 
locations of the switchyards. 

The configuration of the new switchyards is dependent on the reactor technology, number of 
units, and approach for integration with the existing HCGS and SGS switchyards. The new 
switchyards would require additional support services and structures for grounding, lightning 
protection, switchyard control power, and area lighting. 

Presently, there are two 500-kV transmission lines to the HCGS switchyard from offsite 
locations and one 500-kV tie line from HCGS to the SGS switchyard. One offsite line is a 17-mi 
tie to the Red Lion Substation, located northwest near Newark, Delaware, and the other line is a 
43-mi tie to the New Freedom Switching Station, located northeast in Camden County, New 
Jersey. All three lines are capable of providing physically independent sources of offsite power 
to HCGS. 

In addition, there are two 500-kV transmission lines to the SGS switchyard from off the site and 
one 500-kV tie line from SGS to the HCGS switchyard. One offsite line is a 42-mi tie to the New 
Freedom Switching Station. The second offsite line is a 50-mi tie to the New Freedom 
Switching Station. In 2008, a new substation (Orchard) was installed along this line, dividing it 
into two segments. All three lines are capable of providing physically independent sources of 
offsite power to SGS and are available for either or both units. 

The existing transmission lines servicing the HCGS/SGS site have adequate thermal capacity 
to accommodate the additional generation from a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site. 
Independent of this project, however, PJM is evaluating grid improvements to address 
congestion and grid stability and additional offsite transmission lines may be required. 

Access Road 

PSEG has stated that additional access road capacity is necessary to address future 
transportation needs for the PSEG Site. To provide this additional access road capacity, PSEG 
has designed a new three-lane causeway that would be constructed on elevated structures for 
its entire length through the coastal wetlands. The proposed causeway would extend northeast 
for about 5.0 mi from the PSEG property along or adjacent to the existing transmission corridor 
right-of-way (ROW) to the intersection of Money Island Road and Mason Point Road 
(Figure 2-5). The alignment would run roughly 200 ft east of, and parallel to, the existing Hope 
Creek-Red Lion transmission line for most of its length. The PSEG conceptual design for the 
causeway specifies a 200-ft-wide ROW in upland areas at the northern and southern termini 
and a 48-ft-wide structure for the elevated portions of the causeway within lowland areas. 

Figure 3-3 provides a photo simulation of the existing Hope Creek-Red Lion transmission line 
paralleled by the proposed causeway through the Money Island Estuary. 


NUREG-2168 


3-16 


November 2015 


Money Island Estuary Platform 


Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope 



0 

a 

o 


o) > J2 

•E I °- 


y) 

x 

LU 

a> 

JC 


— ro 

.2 3 

C </> 
a) LU 


_ O "O 
^ £L c 
£ _ ro 

® ” w 


t- -C 


2 ,5> c 

I £. ° 


D) 


(/) 


0 


= 5 

O O 
O I- 


0 .c 


E 

o 


O a) 

c .E TJ 


■2 o 

W O 
■*-> o 

w $ 

^ fl) y) 
c -5 TO 


0 

$ 

0 

> 


2 « f 
0 $ 
c c a? 

0 0 C/3 

o o 3 
.* a. ro 


0 

0 

i- 

o 


o 

£ 


(J 

0 


0 0 

a _c 
o 

x ^ 


£ .2 


0^5 ^ 


« 0 
x c 
LU □ 

1 C 
£ o 

G) '</) 

E - 
$ E 
o </> 
.c c 
co 2 
c 
o 


o 

Q_ 

0 


■o 

ro oo 

T™ 

-§>£ 


_TO 

D 

E 


c 

o 


■a 
_ 0 
CO X 

o -i 
0 
0 


O 

JO 

CL 


0 

C 


c 

o 

y) 

y) 

E 

y) 

c 

ro 


O 


CN 

o 

<N 

o 

LU 

CO 

Q_ 

0 

o 

k. 

D 

O 

CO 


CO 

■ 

CO 

0 

i_ 

D 

O) 


November 2015 


3-17 


NUREG-2168 



























Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope 


Because PSEG has determined the proposed causeway would be needed to support the new 
plant, the review team evaluated the impacts of the proposed causeway as part of the project 
(Chapters 4, 5, and 7 of this EIS). 

3.3 Construction and Preconstruction Activities 

The NRC authority is limited to construction activities that have a “reasonable nexus to 
radiological health and safety or common defense and security” (72 FR 57416-TN260), and the 
NRC has defined “construction” within the context of its regulatory authority. Examples of 
construction activities (defined at 10 CFR 50.10(a) [TN249]) for safety-related structures, 
systems, or components (SSCs) include driving of piles; subsurface preparation; placement of 
backfill, concrete, or permanent retaining walls within an excavation; installation of foundations; 
or in-place assembly, erection, fabrication, or testing. 

Other activities related to building a new nuclear power plant that do not require NRC approval, 
but which may require a permit from the USACE, may occur before, during, or after the 
NRC-authorized construction activities. These activities are termed “preconstruction” in 
10 CFR 51.45(c) (TN250) and may be regulated by other local, State, Tribal, or Federal 
agencies. Preconstruction includes activities such as preparation of the site (e.g., site clearing 
and grading, erosion control, and other environmental mitigation measures); erection of fences; 
excavation; erection of support buildings; creation of building service facilities (e.g., roads, 
pipelines, and transmission lines); and procurement or fabrication of components occurring at 
other than the final, in-place location at the site. Further information about the delineation of 
construction and preconstruction activities is presented in Chapter 4 of this EIS. 

This section describes the structures and activities associated with building a new nuclear 
power plant at the PSEG Site. This section also characterizes the major activities for the 
principal structures to provide the requisite background for the assessment of environmental 
impacts. However, it does not represent a discussion of every potential activity or a detailed 
engineering plan. 

For analysis, PSEG has assumed a construction schedule based on the two-unit API 000 
reactor technology with a 2016 construction start date and a 68-month construction schedule 
ending in 2021 (Table 3-2) (PSEG 2012-TN1489; PSEG 2015-TN4280). PSEG has assumed a 
targeted commercial operating date of 2021 for the first unit and 2022 for the second unit 
(PSEG 2012-TN1489). The description of preconstruction and construction activities in this 
section assumes that construction on the PSEG Site would begin following site preparation for 
the first unit and that construction of the second unit would begin 12 months later. 

PSEG has not yet selected a specific reactor technology for the site, so it used technical 
information from the four reactor designs covered by the PPE to develop bounding parameters 
on which assessments could be based (PSEG 2012-TN1489). These bounding parameters 
envelope the characteristics of the proposed facility and allow for an evaluation of the suitability 
of the site for future construction and operation of a nuclear power plant. Therefore, the 
preconstruction and construction activities discussed in this section and the areas depicted on 
the PSEG Site Utilization Plan (Figure 2-2) are intended to bound the assessment of onsite and 
near offsite impacts. 


NUREG-2168 


3-18 


November 2015 


Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope 


Table 3-2. Assumed Schedule for Preconstruction and Construction at the PSEG Site 



Start 

Finish 

Duration 

(months) 

Preconstruction Work 




Clearing, Grubbing, Grading 

20 2015 

3Q 2015 

3 

Access Road/Causeway Construction 

20 2015 

2Q 2017 

24 

Implement Environmental Management System 

2Q 2015 

2Q 2017 

24 

Construct Interposing Switchyard (evaluate for 

2Q 2015 

3Q 2016 

13 

construction power) 




Upgrade Area Roads and Bridges 

2Q 2015 

4Q 2016 

18 

Install Construction Security Infrastructure 

2Q 2015 

3Q 2015 

3 

Install Temporary Utilities 

2Q 2015 

2Q 2017 

24 

Install Temporary Construction Facilities 

2Q 2015 

4Q 2016 

18 

Construct New Barge Facility 

2Q 2015 

3Q 2016 

13 

Install Cofferdam for New Intake 

2Q 2015 

4Q 2015 

5 

Construct Heavy Haul Road 

IQ 2017 

2Q 2017 

4 

Excavate through Fill and Alluvium (both units) 

3Q 2015 

4Q 2016 

15 

PSEG Site Unit 1 Construction 




Excavate to Vincentown Formation (both units) 

4Q 2016 

IQ 2017 

4 

Backfill/First Concrete 

IQ 2017 

2Q 2017 

4 

Site Construction 

2Q 2017 

2Q 2021 

48 

Fuel Load 

2Q 2021 

4Q 2021 

6 

Commercial Operation 

4Q 2021 



PSEG Site Unit 2 Construction 




Backfill/First Concrete 

IQ 2018 

2Q 2018 

4 

Site Construction 

2Q 2018 

2Q 2022 

48 

Fuel Load 

2Q 2022 

4Q 2022 

6 

Commercial Operation 

4Q 2022 



Source: PSEG 2012-TN1489. 


3.3.1 Site Preparation 

Site preparation would include clearing, grubbing, and grading the site; installing erosion control 
measures; building access and haul roads; installing construction security infrastructure; 
installing temporary utilities and facilities (e.g., storage warehouses and the concrete batch 
plant); preparing the laydown, fabrication, and shop areas; relocating existing facilities within the 
PSEG Site; staging equipment; and conducting preparation activities to support power plant 
construction. Figure 2-2 depicts the locations of many of these activities based on the PSEG 
Site Utilization Plan. 

Clearing and grubbing the site would begin with removing the vegetation. The site grade would 
then be made uniform to ensure access to all areas of the construction site. The crosshatched 
areas depicted in Figure 2-2 illustrate the areas that would be cleared, grubbed, and graded 
(PSEG 2012-TN1489). 


November 2015 


3-19 


NUREG-2168 







Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope 


Erosion control measures such as silt fences would be installed around the various work areas 
to prevent surface-water and sediment runoff. Best management practices, including the 
establishment of a stormwater management plan, would be implemented to control and contain 
surface runoff (PSEG 2012-TN1489). To support construction at the PSEG Site, PSEG would 
begin building the proposed causeway (Section 2.2.2.3 and Section 3.2.2.2, Access Road) 

24 months before plant construction (PSEG 2012-TN1489). Building the causeway would 
primarily consist of driving piles from a top-down or parallel temporary structure with 
prefabricated roadway spans set in place between pile clusters. Most of the causeway structure 
would be made of prefabricated elevated sections set in place from an elevated crane to 
minimize impacts along the causeway route. PSEG would also build a heavy haul road along 
the length of the riverfront west of the site (Figure 2-2) to support the transport of heavy 
modules and components from the existing HCGS barge facility and from the proposed parallel 
barge facility. PSEG would build temporary construction parking lots on PSEG property in 
areas near the construction site. Construction laydown and fabrication areas would be cleared, 
grubbed, graded, and graveled or paved with a road system to accommodate the site 
construction traffic (PSEG 2012-TN1489). 

Structures and equipment needed for construction site security would include access control 
points, fencing, lighting, physical barriers, and guardhouses. These construction-level security 
features would be installed during the early part of site-preparation activities (PSEG 2012- 
TN1489). 

Temporary utilities needed for plant construction would include aboveground and underground 
infrastructure for power, communications, potable water, wastewater and waste treatment 
facilities, fire protection, and construction gas and air systems. These temporary utilities would 
support the entire construction site and associated activities, including construction offices, 
warehouses, storage and laydown areas, fabrication and maintenance shops, the power block, 
the batch plant facility, measuring and testing equipment, and the intake and discharge areas. 
Temporary construction facilities needed would include offices, warehouses for receiving and 
storage, temporary workshops, toilets, training facilities, and personnel access facilities. The 
site of the concrete batch plant would be prepared for aggregate unloading and storage, and the 
cement storage silos and concrete batch plant would be erected (PSEG 2012-TN1489). 

Activities to support the preparation of the laydown, fabrication, and shop areas would include a 
construction survey to establish local coordinates and benchmarks for horizontal and vertical 
control; grading, stabilizing, and preparing the laydown areas; installing construction fencing; 
installing shop and fabrication areas, including the concrete slabs for formwork laydown, module 
assembly, equipment parking and maintenance, fuel and lubricant storage, and rigging loft; and 
installing concrete pads for cranes and crane assembly (PSEG 2012-TN1489). 

Preconstruction activities at the PSEG Site would include some limited excavation work 
because structural support for construction excavation would be installed at the lateral limits of 
the excavation for the entire power block. Structural support for construction excavation could 
consist of cellular cofferdams, sheet pile/tie-back walls, or other methods that would be 
specified in a COL. Excavation work conducted as a preconstruction activity would be to a 
depth of about 50 ft below site grade (through the fill and alluvium) (PSEG 2012-TN1489). 


NUREG-2168 


3-20 


November 2015 



Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope 


As described in the PSEG ER (PSEG 2015-TN4280), and based on New Jersey Department of 
Environment Protection (NJDEP) land use land cover (LULC) classification system, the 
proposed project would permanently affect 58.3 ac of Phragmites (common reed)-dominant 
coastal wetlands; 44.1 ac of Phragmites-tiominant interior wetlands; 11.7 ac of wetlands ROW; 

4.6 ac of deciduous scrub/shrub wetlands; 4.0 ac of disturbed wetlands (modified); 2.9 ac of 
tidal rivers, inland bays, and other tidal waters; 0.9 ac of herbaceous wetlands; and 0.1 ac of 
saline marsh. The project would also permanently affect 40.3 ac of artificial lakes. 

Jurisdictional wetlands (i.e., wetlands regulated by the USACE under Section 10 of the Rivers 
and Harbors Appropriations Act (33 USC 403 et seq. -TN660) and Section 404 of the CWA [33 
USC 1251 et seq -TN662]) may be defined and identified differently than wetlands identified as 
part of the NJDEP LULC classification system and are subject to the USACE permitting 
requirements. Therefore, jurisdictional wetlands are evaluated separately from the LULC 
analysis. Because the USACE uses the Cowardin System for land-use classification of 
wetlands and waters, the overall acreages of impacts described above would be similar, but 
may not be identical, to the acreage calculations for the USACE values. It is also important to 
note that the habitat condition and extent of wetlands may vary with time, especially in modified 
or disturbed locations (e.g., CDFs) where dredge materials are being deposited. The USACE 
has prepared and approved jurisdictional determination for the project site (USACE 2014- 
TN3282). The following description of impacts is based on the jurisdicational wetlands 
determination. 

Building materials would be brought to the site and stored in laydown areas. PSEG expects to 
use six temporary laydown areas in various locations on the site. These laydown areas would 
potentially affect 9.1 ac of coastal wetlands. This would include impacts to 288 linear ft of creek 
channel (canal ditch) associated with one laydown area (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

PSEG would build a temporary concrete batch plant on the 45-ac parcel to be leased from the 
USACE. Building this batch plant would potentially affect 19.1 ac of coastal wetlands 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

PSEG would build a heavy haul road along the Delaware River shoreline to support the 
movement of materials from the temporary laydown/batch plant area within the 45-ac leased 
parcel to other areas of the construction site. Developing this haul road would potentially affect 

9.6 ac of coastal wetlands. Of the total wetlands affected by the haul road, 2.3 ac would only be 
temporarily affected (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Building the proposed causeway would potentially affect 1.8 ac of coastal wetlands on the 
PSEG Site. Of the total onsite wetlands affected by the causeway, 0.9 ac would be temporarily 
affected. Potential offsite impacts of the proposed causeway would include 39.6 ac of coastal 
wetlands and 1.4 ac of freshwater wetlands. Of the total offsite wetlands affected by the 
causeway, 19.6 ac would be temporarily affected. Included within the area are potential impacts 
to 30 linear ft of creek channel (stream) on the site and 2,123 linear ft of creek channel 
(stream/artificial path) off the site. Actual impacts to stream channels would be limited to pier 
locations only, and stream channels would most likely be avoided in the final design 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). 


November 2015 


3-21 


NUREG-2168 




Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope 


3.3.2 Power Block Construction 

The power block is defined as all SSCs that perform a direct function in the production, 
transport, or storage of heat energy, electrical energy, or radioactive wastes. Also included are 
SSCs that monitor, control, protect, or otherwise support the above equipment (PSEG 2015- 
TN4283). PSEG states that 70 ac would be required to provide space for the power block 
facilities on the PSEG Site (PSEG 2015-TN4283). 

The PSEG Site power block would consist of an area encompassing the nuclear island and 
turbine island areas, which would include the following buildings for each unit: 

• reactor building, including concrete containment vessel; 

• power source buildings; 

• UHS-related structures; 

• auxiliary building; 

• access building; and 

• turbine building. 

PSEG developed the PPE as a surrogate plant design based on design parameters from the 
API 000, U.S. EPR, ABWR, and US-APWR, under consideration for the site (PSEG 2015- 
TN4283) (Table 1-2 of this EIS). Based on the PPE, PSEG developed a general layout for the 
limits of excavation for the new plant location. The general layout identifies a power block area 
within which all Seismic Category 1 structures for any of the four technologies would be located, 
excluding the outlying Category 1 river intake structure (if required by the specific technology). 
As a preconstruction activity, PSEG would install structural support for excavation at the lateral 
limits of the construction excavation for the entire power block (PSEG 2012-TN1489). 

Construction excavation (i.e., safety-related excavation for Seismic Category 1 structures) 
would be to the Vincentown formation foundation level (about 70 ft below site grade) and would 
implement a second set of structural supports. About 5 million yd 3 of soil would be excavated 
during both preconstruction and construction of the two-unit plant. Material that cannot be 
reused in the excavation would be retained on the site. PSEG would try to achieve beneficial 
reuse of the excavated material (PSEG 2012-TN1489). 

After the subsurface preparations have been completed and the subgrade has been 
geologically mapped, the foundations would be installed. The reactor building basemat would 
be installed first because it is the deepest structure. The detailed steps of installing the reactor 
building basemat would include the following: 

• placement of backfill; 

• installing the grounding grid; 

• forming the mud-mat concrete work surface; and 

• reinforcing steel and civil, electrical, mechanical/piping embedded items (basemat module) 
and forming, concrete placement, and curing (PSEG 2012-TN1489). 


NUREG-2168 


3-22 


November 2015 


Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope 


Earthwork for the construction phase at the PSEG Site would involve removing unsuitable 
materials (soils), both from the overall power block area and from below the Seismic Category 1 
structures, and replacing them with suitable backfill materials. Two categories of backfill would 
be used: Category 1 and Category 2. Category 1 materials would be placed below the 
basemat-bearing grades of the Category 1 structures and adjacent to the below-grade walls of 
the Category 1 structures. Category 2 materials would extend laterally beyond the Category 1 
backfill areas out to the lateral limits of the power block area. The lateral and vertical extent of 
the excavation for the Category 1 structures within the roughly 70-ac power block area would 
depend on the plant technology chosen (PSEG 2012-TN1489). 

The major activities associated with reactor building construction (which would have the longest 
construction duration of any project facility) would include 

• erecting the reactor concrete containment vessel shell; 

• placing the walls, slabs, and reactor pedestal; 

• installing the reactor vessel, pool modules, and primary loop components; and 

• setting the upper reactor building roof structure. 

The mechanical; piping; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning; and electrical installations 
would begin in the lower elevations of the reactor building and would continue to the upper 
elevations (PSEG 2012-TN1489). 

Turbine building construction would begin with the pedestal basement and buried circulating 
water piping installation followed by installation of the pedestal columns, condenser modules, 
and pedestal deck. The building exterior to the turbine pedestal would be erected, and then the 
turbine building crane and the exterior walls and roof would be installed. The turbine and 
generator would be assembled inside the building (PSEG 2012-TN1489). 

Support facilities that would be constructed within the power block include 

• circulating water intake and discharge structures, 

• safety-related piping and electrical tunnels, 

• UHS structure, 

• basin and pump houses, 

• machine shop, 

• fire protection pump house, 

• makeup water treatment building, 

• various yard tanks, and 

• laboratories for radiological and chemical analyses to support plant operations (PSEG 2012- 
TN1489). 

The following description of impacts is based on the jurisdicational wetlands determination as 
described in Section 3.3.1. Power block construction would require clearing and grading 
39.4 ac of coastal wetlands. This would include 1,335 linear ft of creek channel (canal ditch) 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). 


November 2015 


3-23 


NUREG-2168 




Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope 


Clearing and grading an area for the proposed cooling tower would potentially permanently 
affect 48.0 ac of coastal wetlands. This would include 1,280 linear ft of creek channel (canal 
ditch) and 1,187 linear ft of creek channel (stream) (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Construction of two switchyards would require clearing and grading that would potentially 
permanently affect 53.7 ac of coastal wetlands. Included in this area are 2,297 linear ft of creek 
channel (canal ditch) and 848 linear ft of creek channel (stream) (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Construction of the new cooling water intake structure would require lowering the Delaware 
River bottom by 4.5 ft over an area of 31 ac. The total area to be dredged would be 92 ac, 
extending out from the shoreline 1,700 ft, or 13 percent of the total river width of 2.5 mi in this 
location. Construction of the intake structure features along the Delaware River shoreline would 
result in the conversion of 9.5 ac of riparian zone and shallow water habitat to industrial uses. 
The intake structure would potentially permanently affect 1.5 ac of coastal wetlands 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

3.3.3 Construction Workforce 

PSEG states that about 3,950 to 4,100 workers would be on the site for construction of a new 
nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site (PSEG 2015-TN4283). The analyses in the ER 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280) assume 2016 as the construction start date and a 68-month construction 
schedule ending in 2021. 

3.3.4 Summary of Resource Commitments During Construction and Preconstruction 

Table 3-3 provides a list of the significant resource commitments associated with construction 
and preconstruction. The values in the table combined with the affected environment described 
in Chapter 2 provide the basis for the impacts assessed in Chapter 4. These values were 
stated in the PSEG ER (PSEG 2015-TN4280) and SSAR (PSEG 2015-TN4283), and the review 
team has confirmed that the values are not unreasonable. 

Table 3-3. Summary of Resource Commitments Associated with Preconstruction and 
Construction at the PSEG Site 


Parameter Description 


Value 


Duration of preconstruction and construction activities 
Centerpoint of the new plant 


68 months (5.67 yr) 

Latitude: 39°28'23.744" North 
Longitude: 75°32'24.332" West 


Total acreage PSEG Site 

Acreage of PSEG Site currently owned by PSEG 

Acreage of PSEG Site to be obtained from the USACE 

Acreage of PSEG Site to be leased (temporary) from the USACE 

Disturbed area footprint (temporary) for laydown and construction 
support area 

Disturbed area footprint (permanent) total 
Disturbed area footprint (permanent) for power block 
Disturbed area footprint (permanent) for intake 


819 ac 
734 ac 
85 ac 
45 ac 
205 ac 


225 ac 
70 ac 

Intake dimensions would be 
110 ft x 200 ft 


NUREG-2168 


3-24 


November 2015 




Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope 


Table 3-3. (continued) 


Parameter Description 

Value 

Dredged depth for intake 

19 ft 10 in. NAVD 

Disturbed area footprint (permanent) for onsite switchyard 

63 ac 

Width of causeway ROW in upland areas at the northern and 
southern termini 

200 ft 

Width of elevated causeway in lowland areas 

48 ft 

Disturbed area for causeway construction 

69 ac 

45.5 ac (permanent) 

23.5 ac (temporary) 

Tallest power block structure, from finished grade to top 

234 ft 

Water from onsite freshwater aquifer for construction uses: potable 
and sanitary use, concrete mixing and curing, and dust control 

119 gpm 

Peak construction workforce 

4,100 workers 

Peak noise level at 50 ft from activity 

102 dBA 

Peak noise level at 1,500 ft from activity 

58 dBA 

Source: PSEG 2015-TN4280. 



3.4 Operational Activities 


The operational activities considered in the staffs environmental review are those associated 
with structures that interface with the environment. Examples of operational activities are 
withdrawing water for the cooling system, discharging blowdown water and sanitary effluent, 
and discharging waste heat to the atmosphere. Safety activities within the plant are discussed 
by PSEG in the SSAR portion of its application (PSEG 2015-TN4283) and are reviewed by the 
NRC in its safety evaluation report (in progress). 

The following sections describe the operational activities, including the cooling system and its 
operational modes (Section 3.4.1), the plant-environmental interfaces of importance during 
operation (Section 3.4.2), and the radioactive and nonradioactive waste management systems 
(Sections 3.4.3 and 3.4.4). 

3.4.1 Description of Cooling System Operational Modes 

The operational modes for a new nuclear power plant considered in the assessment of 
operational impacts on the environment (Chapter 5 of this EIS) are normal operating conditions 
and emergency shutdown conditions. These are the nominal conditions under which maximum 
water withdrawal, heat dissipation, and effluent discharges occur. Cooldown, refueling, and 
accidents are alternative modes to normal plant operation during which water intake, cooling 
tower evaporation water discharge, and radioactive releases may change from nominal 
conditions. The primary plant cooling shifts from the CWS to the essential SWS (ESWS) during 
these alternate modes. 

3.4.2 Plant-Environmental Interfaces During Operation 

When in operation, the new plant would produce electrical energy from nuclear fuel using a 
steam turbine system as described in Section 3.2.1. Waste heat is a by-product of normal 


November 2015 


3-25 


NUREG-2168 






Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope 


power generation at a nuclear power plant. The excess heat that remains in the closed-loop 
steam system after it passes through the turbines would be transferred to the atmosphere 
through evaporation using cooling towers, as described in Section 3.2.2.2. Water for the new 
cooling towers would be obtained from a new intake structure to be built on the Delaware River, 
as described in Section 3.2.2.2. The following sections describe the proposed plant- 
environmental interfaces during operation in terms of its CWS (Section 3.4.2.1), landscape and 
drainage (Section 3.4.2.2), ESWS or UHS (Section 3.4.2.3), and emergency diesel generators 
(Section 3.4.2.4). 

3.4.2 .7 Circulating Water System 

As discussed in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, a new makeup water intake structure would be 
located west of the plant on the Delaware River shoreline about 2,800 ft north of the HCGS 
service water intake structure (Figure 2-2). The intake structure bay and screens would be 
sized such that the average intake through-screen velocity would be less than 0.5 fps to meet 
the requirements of the Clean Water Act Section 316(b) Phase I rule (33 USC 1251 et seq. - 
TN662). 

The plant discharge would consist of CWS and SWS blowdowns, SWS makeup filter backwash, 
and other wastewater streams, including those from PSWSs, demineralized water systems, 
miscellaneous drains blowdowns, and liquid radwaste flow (Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2). The 
combined plant discharge would average 51,946 gpm with a maximum of 53,222 gpm. An 
NJPDES permit for the plant would specify volumes and constituent concentrations of the plant 
discharge. 

The plant would use one or two wet cooling towers to dissipate waste heat (Sections 3.2.1 and 
3.2.2). The CWS cooling towers would use mechanical draft, natural draft, or fan-assisted 
natural draft design, and the SWS cooling towers would be a mechanical draft design. 

3.4.2.2 Landscape and Drainage 

At the ESP stage, PSEG has not selected a single reactor design that would be used for a new 
nuclear power plant. Therefore, detailed site layout and drainage system features are not 
available. However, PSEG has provided a general description of landscape and drainage in 
Chapter 2, Section 2.4, of the ESP SSAR (PSEG 2015-TN4283). The following discussion 
summarizes the information provided in the SSAR. 

The design basis flood elevation would be 32.1 ft NAVD88 (see Table 2.4.5-4 in PSEG 2015- 
TN4283). Safety-related SSCs for the new plant would be designed with flood protection 
features to withstand the flood height of the design basis flood and its associated effects. The 
site would be graded such that runoff from the site and power block area would be directed to a 
system of swales and pipes that would discharge to the Delaware River. At this stage, PSEG 
has stated that most of the area of the new plant would drain to the north and west, away from 
existing facilities at SGS and HCGS. 

The new plant would require a stormwater management system. However, the detailed design 
of the stormwater system is not yet complete because the site layout is currently not known in 
the absence of a selected reactor design. PSEG would be required to follow applicable Federal, 


NUREG-2168 


3-26 


November 2015 



Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope 


State, and local stormwater management regulations and to implement best management 
practices to minimize adverse effects on water quality. 

3.4.2.3 Essential Service Water System 

As discussed in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, and shown in Table 3-1, the UHS makeup water flow 
rate during emergencies would be 4,568 gpm. 

3.4.2.4 Emergency Diesel Generators 

Diesel generators and/or gas turbines would be used during emergency conditions to provide 
electricity for water pumping and support for other emergency activities. When in use, these 
diesel generators or gas turbines would emit criteria pollutants (as defined under the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] National Ambient Air Quality Standards [EPA 2013- 
TN1975]). Based on the bounding assumptions for the PPE (PSEG 2015-TN4283), the PSEG 
Site would have six backup generators (four emergency and two normal) and/or six gas turbines 
as part of the emergency power supply system. The anticipated annual auxiliary boiler, diesel 
generator, and gas turbine air emissions, which include nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, carbon 
monoxide, hydrocarbons in the form of volatile organic compounds, and particulate matter, are 
provided in Table 3-4. Modifications to the SGS and HCGS Title V Operating Permit under the 
Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401 et seq. -TN1141), addressing emissions and compliance with State 
and Federal regulations, would be required for a new plant. 

Table 3-4. Annual Estimated Pollutant Emissions from Cooling Towers, Auxiliary 

Boilers, Diesel Generators, and Gas Turbines at a New Nuclear Power Plant at 
the PSEG Site 



Cooling 

Auxiliary 

Diesel 

Gas 

Total Emissions 


Towers 

Boilers 

Generators 

Turbines 



Emission Effluent 

(lb/yr) (a) 

(lb/yr) (b) 

(lb/yr) (c) 

(lb/yr) (d > 

(Ib/yr) 

(ton/yr) 

Nitrogen Oxides 

NA (e) 

76,088 

28,968 

9,540 

114,596 

57.3 

Carbon Monoxide 

NA 

6,996 

4,600 

824 

12,420 

6.2 

Sulfur Oxides 

NA 

460,000 

5,010 

547 

465,557 

232.8 

Volatile Organic 
Compounds* 0 

NA 

400,800 

3,070 

43 

403,913 

202.0 

Particulates (PMio) 

122,000 

138,000 

1,620 

130 

261,750 

130.9 


(a) Based on 8,760 hours of operation at 13.9 Ib/hr. 

(b) Based on 120 days of operation; PPE values are based on 30 d/yr operation—to obtain emissions for 120 
days, the value in the PPE is multiplied by 4. 

(c) Based on 4 hours of operation per month. 

(d) Based on operation of 1 hour per month and one additional 24-hour period every 24 months for a total of six 
gas turbine generators. Higher emissions between uncontrolled and water-steam injection are presented. 

(e) NA = not applicable. 

(f) Volatile organic compounds as total hydrocarbon. 

Source: PSEG 2015-TN4280; PSEG 2015-TN4283. 


3.4.3 Radioactive Waste Management Systems 

Liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive waste management systems would be used to collect and 
treat the radioactive materials produced as by-products of operating a new nuclear power plant 
at the PSEG Site. These systems would process radioactive liquid, gaseous, and solid effluents 


November 2015 


3-27 


NUREG-2168 












Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope 


to maintain releases within regulatory limits and to levels as low as reasonably achievable 
before releasing them to the environment. Waste processing systems would be designed to 
meet the design objectives of 10 CFR Part 50 (TN249), “Domestic Licensing of Production and 
Utilization Facilities,” Appendix I ( Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting 
Conditions for Operation to Meet the Criterion "As Low as is Reasonably Achievable" for 
Radiological Material in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents ), and 10 CFR Part 
20 (TN283), “Standards for Protection Against Radiation.” 

Radioactive material in the reactor coolant would be the primary source of gaseous, liquid, and 
solid radioactive wastes in light water reactors. Radioactive fission products build up within the 
fuel as a consequence of the fission process. These fission products would be contained in the 
sealed fuel rods, but small quantities escape the fuel rods into the reactor coolant. Neutron 
activation of the primary coolant system would also be responsible for coolant contamination 
and for induced radioactivity in reactor components. 

PSEG has not identified specific radioactive waste management systems for a new nuclear 
power plant on the PSEG Site. The PPE concept was used to provide an upper bound on liquid 
radioactive effluents, gaseous radioactive effluents, and solid radioactive waste releases. 
Adequate design information to estimate liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents was available 
for all four reactor designs considered in establishing the PPE values. Bounding effluent 
concentrations were determined based on a composite of the highest activity content of the 
individual isotopes for a single unit U.S. EPR, single unit ABWR, single unit US-APWR, and 
dual unit API000. Bounding liquid effluent releases and gaseous effluent releases are provided 
in Table 1.3-8 and Table 1.3-7, respectively, of the PSEG SSAR (PSEG 2015-TN4283). 

Solid radioactive wastes produced from operation of a new plant would be either dry or wet 
solids. The solid radioactive waste management system would receive, collect, and store solid 
wastes before onsite storage or shipment off the site. PSEG has indicated that the storage of 
low-level solid waste would be coordinated with the storage of waste from the existing HCGS 
and SGS. The estimated bounding annual volume of radioactive solid waste is 16,721.5 ft 3 per 
year with an estimated bounding radioactive material activity of 1.18 * 10 6 Ci per year 
(PSEG 2015-TN4283;_Table 1.3-1 for the volume and Table 1.3-3 for the activity). 

3.4.4 Nonradioactive Waste Management Systems 

The following sections provide descriptions of the nonradioactive waste systems for a new 
nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site, including systems for chemical, biocide, and sanitary 
waste streams and other effluents. Detailed information regarding nonradioactive waste 
management and effluent control systems, process/instrumentation diagrams, and system 
process flow diagrams would be provided during the COL application phase following reactor 
technology selection. Bounding parameters from the PPE, described in the PSEG SSAR 
(PSEG 2015-TN4283), and site-specific characteristics are used to establish conceptual 
nonradioactive waste system descriptions. 

3.4.4.1 Effluents Containing Chemicals or Biocides 

This section describes the nonradioactive waste systems and the chemical and biocidal 
characteristics of the nonradioactive waste streams collected by the wastewater treatment 


NUREG-2168 


3-28 


November 2015 



Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope 


system before discharge. Water chemistry for various plant water uses would be controlled with 
the addition of biocides, algaecides, corrosion inhibitors, scale inhibitors, and dehalogenators. 
The new plant at the PSEG Site would use chemicals and biocides similar to those currently 
used for the existing operations at HCGS and SGS, including sodium hypochlorite, sodium 
silicate, and sodium bisulfite. The following nonradioactive wastewater constituents may be 
generated in the secondary systems associated with a new plant at the PSEG Site: 

• sodium and sulfate salts from neutralized sodium hydroxide and sulfuric acid used for 
regeneration of resins, 

• sulfuric acid for calcite scale control in cooling water systems, 

• phosphate from cleaning liquids, 

• chloride, 

• biocides used for defouling purposes, 

• residual oxidants, 

• boiler blowdown chemicals, and 

• oil and grease from plant floor drains. 

Table 3-5 provides the estimated concentrations of impurities in the blowdown water and other 
plant flows, which contribute to cooling water and plant effluent discharge to the Delaware River 
(PSEG 2015-TN4283). The chemical concentrations within the new plant effluent streams 
would be controlled through engineering and operational controls to meet NJPDES 
requirements as well as requirements set by Federal, regional, or local regulatory agencies at 
the time of construction and operation. 


Table 3-5. Blowdown Constituents and Concentrations in Liquid Effluent Discharge 


Constituents 

(mg/L) 

cws 

Blowdown 

SWS/UHS 

Blowdown 

SWS Water 

Treatment 

Discharge 

Sanitary 

System 

Discharge 

Other Plant 
Discharge 

Combined 

Discharge 

pH 

7.6 

7.5 

7.1 

8.1 

8.1 

7.6 

Alkalinity (CaCCb) 

70 

64 

47.1 

283 

293 

71 

Suspended Solids 

180 

30 

30 

30 

30 

176 

Total Dissolved 
Solids 

9,860 

13,150 

6,280 

624 

545 

9,894 

Total Hardness 
(CaC0 3 ) 

2,020 

2,700 

1,330 

134 

120 

2,027 

Calcium 

146 

195 

96 

29 

27 

147 

Magnesium 

403 

537 

264 

15 

12 

404 

Sodium 

3,020 

4,030 

1,980 

120 

99 

3,030 

Chloride 

5,490 

7,330 

3,725 

52 

26 

5,508 

Sulfate 

748 

1,030 

507 

33 

16 

751 

Bicarbonate 

83 

77 

56.4 

310 

357 

84 

Ammonia 

0.5 

0.6 

0.313 

25 

— 

0.5 

Phosphate (ortho) 

0.5 

0.7 

0.35 

5 

— 

0.5 

Silica (SiC> 2 ) 

1.0 

1.3 

0.67 

12 

10 

1.0 

Source: PSEG Site Safety Analysis Report, Table 1.3-2 (PSEG 2015-TN4283). 




November 2015 


3-29 


NUREG-2168 






Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope 


3.4.4.2 Sanitary System Effluents 

This section briefly describes the anticipated volumes generated during construction or 
operation and the method for ultimate disposal of treated wastes. 

The sewage treatment system that treats the daily flow from the existing PSEG Site would be 
upgraded to accommodate a new power plant. Conceptually, the new plant could include two 
units, each with a capacity of 70,000 gpd, and be equipped with an extended aeration activated 
sludge system. Each unit would include an aeration tank and clarifier followed by a chlorine 
contact chamber. A single surge tank would be provided to equalize variations in influent flows 
to the treatment units. A sludge holding tank would be provided for waste sludge. Residuals 
would be disposed of off the site in a manner similar to current practices at the existing PSEG 
plants. 

PSEG reports the bounding influent flow to the sanitary treatment system for operating the new 
plant on average would be 93 gpm, which equates to an average daily flow rate of 134,000 gpd. 
The bounding influent flow during construction is 123,000 gpd (85 gpm average) based on the 
peak construction workforce of 4,100 persons (PSEG 2015-TN4283) and a flow of 30 gal per 
capita per day (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

New plant effluent discharges would be regulated under the provisions of the Clean Water Act 
(33 USC 1251 et seq. -TN662), and the conditions of discharge, including total suspended 
solids and 5-day biochemical oxygen demand, would be specified in the NJPDES permit. The 
estimated operational normal and maximum effluent flow rate from the sanitary waste water 
system is 93 gpm (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

3.4.4.3 Other Nonradioactive Waste Effluents 
Gaseous Emissions 

Nonradioactive gaseous and particulate emissions would result from the cooling towers, the 
seasonal and intermittent operation of the auxiliary boilers, and the intermittent testing and 
operation of the standby power system generators. The primary sources of emissions would be 
the auxiliary boilers, standby power units (e.g., diesel generators, gas turbines, and engine- 
driven emergency equipment. The auxiliary boilers would be used for heating the new plant 
buildings, primarily during the winter months, and for process steam during plant startups. The 
standby diesel generators, standby gas turbine generators, and engine-driven emergency 
equipment would be used intermittently and for brief durations. Low sulfur fuels would be used 
for all equipment, thereby minimizing gaseous and particulate emissions during the periods 
when the equipment operated. The cooling towers would be the primary source of particulate 
emissions. These emissions commonly include particulates, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, 
hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

The auxiliary boilers’ exhaust would be at an elevation of 150 ft above grade, the standby diesel 
generators’ exhaust would be at an elevation of 50 ft above grade, and the gas turbines’ 
exhaust would be at an elevation of 50 ft above grade. Table 3-4 in Section 3.4.2.4 summarizes 
pollutant emissions from the cooling towers, auxiliary boilers, diesel generators, and gas turbine 


NUREG-2168 


3-30 


November 2015 





Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope 


generators. PSEG states that gaseous and particulate releases will comply with Federal, State, 
and local emissions standards. 

PSEG states that the site is within an ozone nonattainment area (Salem County, New Jersey) 
and adjacent to a nonattainment area for particulate matter smaller than 2.5 pm in diameter 
(PM 2 . 5 ) (New Castle County, Delaware). However, recently New Castle County was 
redesignated from nonattainment area to maintenance area for PM 2 . 5 . The new plant would 
comply with all regulatory requirements of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401 et seq. -TN1141), 
including requirements of the NJDEP Division of Air Quality, thereby minimizing any impacts on 
state and regional air quality. Modifications to the SGS and HCGS Air Operating Permit under 
Title V of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401 et seq. -TN1141) from the NJDEP would be required 
for the plant to address emissions and compliance with State and Federal regulations. 

Small amounts of volatile organic compounds would also be generated from the use of common 
building maintenance materials such as paints, adhesives, and caulk; from mechanical 
maintenance materials such as oils and solvents; and periodically from activities such as 
asphalt resealing. 

Liquid Effluents 

Nonradioactive liquid effluents that potentially drain to the Delaware River would be limited 
under the NJPDES permit. These liquid effluents would primarily be discharges from site storm 
drainage outfalls and plant drains and other power block discharges such as CWS and SWS 
blowdown and the sanitary water system. Existing site storm drainage outfalls may be modified, 
and new outfalls to the Delaware River may be constructed to accommodate adjusted flow 
paths or volumes created by building and operating a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). Liquid effluents from the power block of the new plant would be 
combined with the cooling tower blowdown and sanitary system effluent, treated in the 
wastewater treatment facility, and routed to the common plant outfall that discharges to the 
Delaware River. Table 3-5 provides a summary of the combined discharge from the five 
primary flows. The design of the stormwater systems for a new plant would comply with 
relevant Federal, State, and local stormwater regulations. The total residual chemical 
concentrations in the discharges to the Delaware River watershed are subject to limits 
established by the NJDEP, which are deemed protective of the water quality of the Delaware 
River (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Solid Effluents 

Nonradioactive solid wastes would include typical industrial wastes such as metal, wood, and 
paper and process wastes such as nonradioactive resins and sludge. PSEG is currently a 
conditionally exempt small-quantity hazardous waste generator, generating less than 100 kg per 
month (220 Ib/mo). PSEG maintains the programs required of a small-quantity generator and 
monitors the amount of hazardous waste generated each month. Hazardous waste is disposed 
of through licensed disposal facilities. Universal waste, such as paint waste, lead-acid batteries, 
used lamps, and mercury-containing switches, is segregated and disposed of off the site 
through licensed disposal facilities. 


November 2015 


3-31 


NUREG-2168 




Site Layout and Plant Parameter Envelope 


Normal station waste (e.g., paper, plastic, glass, and river vegetation) is segregated and, as 
much as possible, processed for recycling. Currently, about two-thirds of the normal station 
waste is transferred to recycling vendors and the remainder either incinerated or placed in a 
landfill (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Normal station waste generated by a new plant would be 
accommodated by existing practices at the SGS and HCGS sites. 

Other Effluents 

Mixed waste is a combination of hazardous waste and low-level radioactive material, special 
nuclear material, or by-product materials. Mixed waste could be created during activities such 
as routine maintenance, refueling, and radiochemical laboratory work. The NRC (10 CFR) and 
EPA (40 CFR) regulations govern generation, management, handling, storage, treatment, 
disposal, and protection requirements associated with these wastes. Management of these 
wastes would conform to applicable Federal and State requirements in a manner similar to that 
for existing PSEG operations. The quantities expected from a new plant would be small 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). 


NUREG-2168 


3-32 


November 2015 


4.0 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS AT THE PROPOSED SITE 


This chapter examines the environmental issues associated with building a new nuclear power 
plant at the PSEG Power, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear, LLC (PSEG) Site as described in the 
application for an early site permit (ESP) submitted by PSEG to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC). Although an ESP would not provide NRC authorization to conduct 
construction activities, as part of its application, PSEG submitted (1) an Environmental Report 
(ER) (PSEG 2015-TN4280), which discusses the environmental impacts of building, operating, 
and decommissioning a new nuclear power plant, and (2) a Site Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) 
(PSEG 2015-TN4283), which addresses safety aspects of building and operating a new nuclear 
power plant. PSEG also submitted a Federal and State Application for the Alteration of Any 
Floodplain, Waterway, or Tidal or Nontidal Wetland in New Jersey to the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers (USACE) and to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) 
(USACE 2014-TN4235). 

As discussed in Section 3.3 of this environmental impact statement (EIS), the NRC authority 
related to building new nuclear units is limited to construction “activities that have a reasonable 
nexus to radiological health and safety and/or common defense and security” (72 FR 57416- 
TN260). The NRC has defined “construction” within the context of its regulatory authority. 

Many of the activities required to build a nuclear power plant do not fall within the NRC 
regulatory authority and, therefore, are not “construction” as defined by the NRC. Such 
activities are referred to as “preconstruction” activities in Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) 51.45(c) (TN250). The NRC staff evaluates the direct, indirect, and 
cumulative impacts of the construction activities that would be authorized if the holder of an ESP 
applied for and was issued a combined construction permit (CP) and operating license (i.e., 
combined license [COL]) for the site. The environmental effects of preconstruction activities 
(e.g., clearing and grading, excavation, and erection of support buildings) are included as part of 
this EIS in the evaluation of cumulative impacts. 

As described in Section 1.1.6, the USACE is a cooperating agency on this EIS consistent with 
the updated Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed with the NRC (USACE and 
NRC 2008-TN637). The NRC and USACE established this cooperative agreement because 
both agencies concluded it is the most effective and efficient use of Federal resources in the 
environmental review of a proposed new nuclear power plant. The goal of this cooperative 
agreement is the development of one EIS that provides all the environmental information and 
analyses needed by the NRC to make a license/permit decision and all the information needed 
by the USACE to perform analyses, draw conclusions, and make a permit decision in the 
USACE Record of Decision documentation. To accomplish this goal, the environmental review 
described in this EIS was conducted by a joint NRC-USACE team. The review team was 
composed of the NRC staff and its contractors and staff from the USACE. 

The USACE is responsible for ensuring that the information presented in this EIS is adequate to 
fulfill the requirements of the USACE regulations; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 
(EPA’s) 404(b)(1) “Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material” 

(40 CFR Part 230-TN427), hereafter the 404(b)(1) Guidelines, which contains the substantive 
environmental criteria used by the USACE in evaluating discharges of dredged or fill material 


November 2015 


4-1 


NUREG-2168 




Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


into waters of the United States; and the USACE public interest review process. The USACE 
will decide whether to issue a permit based on an evaluation of the probable impact including 
cumulative impacts of the proposed activity on the public interest. By guidelines, no discharge 
of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed 
discharge that would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem provided the 
alternative does not have other significant adverse consequences. That USACE decision will 
reflect the national concern for both protection and use of important resources. The benefit 
which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal must be balanced against its 
reasonably foreseeable detriments. Factors that may be relevant to the proposal will be 
considered including the cumulative effects thereof; among those are conservation, economics, 
aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic and cultural resources, fish 
and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and 
accretion, recreation, water supply, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber 
production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership, and, in general, the needs 
and welfare of the people. 

Many of the impacts the USACE must address in its analysis are the result of preconstruction 
activities. Also, most of the activities conducted by a COL applicant that would require a permit 
from the USACE would be preconstruction activities. PSEG plans to submit an application to 
the USACE for a permit to conduct the following activities: filling, dredging, grading, and 
building structures. 

While both the NRC and the USACE must meet the requirements of the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) (42 USC 4321 et seq. -TN661), both agencies also 
have mission requirements that must be met in addition to the NEPA requirements. The NRC 
regulatory authority is based on the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 USC 2011 
et seq. -TN663). The USACE regulatory authority related to the proposed action is based on 
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of 1899 (33 USC 403 et seq. -TN660), 
which prohibits the obstruction or alteration of navigable waters of the United States without a 
permit from the USACE, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA, 33 USC 1344 et seq. - 
TNI 019), which prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United 
States without a permit from the USACE. Therefore, the applicant may not commence 
preconstruction or construction activities in jurisdictional waters, including wetlands, without a 
USACE permit. The USACE will complete its evaluation of the proposed project after it fully 
considers the recommendations of the USACE staff; Federal, State, and local resource 
agencies; and members of the public and assesses the cumulative impact of the total project 
and after the following consultations and coordination efforts are completed: Section 106 of the 
National Historic Preservation Act (54 USC 300101 et seq. -TN4157), including, as appropriate, 
development and implementation of any Memoranda of Agreement; the Endangered Species 
Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq. -TNI010); Essential Fish Habitat Assessment (NOAA 1999- 
TN1845); State forest conservation plans; State water-quality certifications; and State coastal 
zone consistency determinations. Because the USACE is a cooperating agency under the 
MOU for this EIS, the USACE decision of whether to issue a permit will not be made until after 
the NRC-USACE final EIS is issued. 

The collaborative effort between the NRC and the USACE in presenting the discussion of the 
environmental effects of building a new nuclear power plant, in this chapter and elsewhere, 


NUREG-2168 


4-2 


November 2015 



Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


must serve the needs of both agencies. Consistent with the MOU, the NRC and USACE staffs 
collaborated in the (1) review of the ESP application and information provided in response to 
requests for additional information (developed by the NRC and the USACE) and 
(2) development of the EIS. The NRC regulations (10 CFR 51.45(c) [TN250]) require that the 
impacts of preconstruction activities be addressed by the applicant as cumulative impacts in its 
ER. Similarly, the NRC analysis of the environmental effects of preconstruction activities on 
each resource area would be addressed as cumulative impacts, normally presented in 
Chapter 7 of the EIS. However, because of the collaborative effort between the NRC and the 
USACE in the environmental review, the combined impacts of construction activities that would 
be authorized by the NRC with the eventual issuance of a COL and preconstruction activities 
are presented in this chapter. For each resource area, the NRC also provides an impact 
characterization solely for construction activities that meet the NRC definition of construction at 
10 CFR 50.10(a) (TN249). The combined impacts of construction and preconstruction activities 
are considered in the description and assessment of cumulative impacts in Chapter 7 of this 
EIS. 

For most environmental resource areas (e.g., terrestrial ecology), the impacts are not solely the 
result of either preconstruction or construction activities. Rather, the impacts are attributable to 
a combination of preconstruction and construction activities. For most resource areas, the 
majority of the impacts would occur as a result of preconstruction activities. 

This chapter is divided into 12 sections. In Sections 4.1 through 4.11, the review team 
evaluates the potential impacts on land use, water use and quality, terrestrial and aquatic 
ecosystems, socioeconomics, environmental justice, historic and cultural resources, 
meteorology and air quality, nonradiological health effects, radiological health effects, 
nonradioactive waste, and applicable measures and controls that would limit the adverse 
impacts of building a new nuclear power plant. An impact category level—SMALL, 
MODERATE, or LARGE—of potential adverse impacts has been assigned by the review team 
for each resource area using the definitions for these terms established in Chapter 1. In some 
resource areas, for example, in the socioeconomic area where the impacts of taxes are 
analyzed, the impacts may be considered beneficial and would be stated as such. The review 
team determination of the impact category levels is based on the assumption that the mitigation 
measures identified in the ER or activities planned by various State and county governments, 
such as infrastructure upgrades (discussed throughout this chapter), are implemented. Failure 
to implement these upgrades might result in a change in the impact category level. Possible 
mitigation of adverse impacts, where appropriate, is presented in Section 4.11. A summary of 
the construction impacts is presented in Section 4.12. The technical analyses provided in this 
chapter support the results, conclusions, and recommendations presented in Chapters 7, 9, 
and 10. 

The review team evaluation of the impacts of building a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG 
Site draws on information presented in the PSEG ER and SSAR (PSEG 2015-TN4280 and 
PSEG 2015-TN4283, respectively) and supplemental documents, the USACE permitting 
documentation, and other government and independent sources. 


November 2015 


4-3 


NUREG-2168 


Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


4.1 Land-Use Impacts 

This section provides information about land-use impacts associated with site preparation 
activities (preconstruction) and construction of a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site. 

The breakdown of activities into preconstruction and construction categories is provided in 
Section 3.3 and discussed in Section 4.1.1. Topics discussed in this section include land-use 
impacts at the PSEG Site and in the vicinity of the site (Section 4.1.1) and at offsite areas, 
especially the proposed causeway alignment (Section 4.1.2). 

4.1.1 The Site and Vicinity 

The following characterizations of impacts are based on the NJDEP land use and land cover 
(LULC) classification system. As discussed in Section 2.2.1, the PSEG Site includes 819 ac, of 
which PSEG owns 734 ac as the existing PSEG property. For a new nuclear power plant, 
PSEG would acquire from the USACE an additional 85 ac north of Hope Creek Generating 
Station (HCGS) (Figure 2-2). During construction, PSEG would temporarily lease from the 
USACE an additional 45 ac north of the PSEG Site as the location of the concrete batch plant 
and a construction/laydown area (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Land-use impacts associated with building a new nuclear power plant on the PSEG Site would 
result from land disturbance and changes in land use during both preconstruction and 
construction activities. Preconstruction activities would include site clearing and grading, 
implementing erosion control and other environmental mitigation measures, erecting fences, 
excavation, erecting support buildings, and building onsite roads and transmission lines. 
Construction activities for safety-related structures, systems, or components would include 
driving piles; subsurface preparation; placing backfill, concrete, or permanent retaining walls 
within an excavation; installing foundations; or assembling, erecting, fabricating, or testing those 
structures in place. 

As described by PSEG, these preconstruction and construction activities would disturb up to 
430 ac on the PSEG Site and in the immediate vicinity (excluding the proposed causeway). Of 
this total, 225 ac on the PSEG Site would be permanently disturbed to support developed or 
industrial land uses associated with a new nuclear power plant (including 70 ac for the power 
block), and 205 ac would be temporarily disturbed for laydown and construction areas (160 ac 
on the PSEG Site and 45 ac off the site) (Table 4-1) (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

The 225 ac that would be permanently disturbed to support urban or built-up land uses includes 
108 ac of wetland (primarily Phragmites- [common reed-] dominated coastal and interior 
wetlands), 47 ac of urban or built-up land associated with HCGS and Salem Generating Station 
(SGS), 43 ac of water (artificial lakes and tidal waters), 19 ac of barren land, and 9 ac of 
forestland (Table 4-1 and Figure 4-1). More than one-third of the area that would be 
permanently disturbed (85 ac of the total 225 ac) is currently part of the USACE Artificial Island 
Confined Disposal Facility (CDF). The urban or built-up lands on the PSEG Site that would be 
permanently disturbed have been or are being used for construction and operation of HCGS 
and SGS (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 


NUREG-2168 


4-4 


November 2015 





Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Table 4-1. Land-Use Changes from Preconstruction and Construction Activities on the 
PSEG Site 




PSEG Site 


Adjacent Offsite 
Areas (a) 

New Jersey Land-Use Category 

Total Onsite 
Area (ac) 

Permanent 
Use (ac) 

Temporary 
Use (ac) 

Temporary 
Use (ac) 

Urban or Built-Up Land 

Industrial 

234.5 

26.4 

5.1 

0.0 

Transportation/Communication/Utilities 

8.5 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Wetlands Right-of-Way 

23.8 

11.7 

5.9 

0.0 

Upland Right-of-Way Developed 

0.5 

0.0 

0.2 

0.0 

Upland Right-of-Way Undeveloped 

29.5 

0.0 

19.6 

0.0 

Other Urban or Built-Up Land 

55.8 

8.1 

9.5 

2.4 

P/7ragm/tes-Dominated Urban Area 

0.5 

0.5 

0.0 

0.0 

Recreation Land 

4.9 

0.0 

4.4 

0.0 

Subtotal: 

358.0 

46.7 

44.7 

2.4 

Forestland 

Old Field (<25% brush covered) 

69.4 

2.6 

54.3 

0.0 

Phragmites-Dorc\\na\eti Old Field 

31.9 

0.1 

26.0 

0.0 

Deciduous Brush/Shrubland 

6.0 

6.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Subtotal: 

107.3 

8.7 

80.3 

0.0 

Water 

Artificial Lakes 

40.4 

40.3 

0.0 

0.0 

Tidal Rivers, Inland Bays, and Other Tidal 

5.6 

2.9 

0.3 

0.1 

Waters 

Subtotal: 

46.0 

43.2 

0.3 

0.1 

Wetlands 

Saline Marsh 

0.2 

0.1 

0.0 

0.8 

Phragmites -Dominated Coastal Wetlands 

155.6 

58.3 

5.1 

2.1 

Herbaceous Wetlands 

5.8 

0.9 

2.5 

0.0 

Deciduous Scrub/Shrub Wetlands 

4.6 

4.6 

0.0 

0.0 

P/7ra^r7?//es-Dominated Interior Wetlands 

118.7 

44.1 

24.2 

27.3 

Subtotal: 

284.9 

108.0 

31.8 

30.2 

Barren Land 

Altered Lands 

14.8 

14.8 

0.0 

0.7 

Disturbed Wetlands (modified) 

4.3 

4.0 

0.1 

11.8 

Subtotal: 

19.1 

18.8 

0.1 

12.5 

Managed Wetlands 

Managed Wetland in Maintained Lawn 

3.8 

0.0 

2.7 

0.0 

Green Space 

Subtotal: 

3.8 

0.0 

2.7 

0.0 

Total: 

819.1 

225.4 

159.9 

45.2 


(a) Located in the USACE Artificial Island Confined Disposal Facility and include batch plant, heavy haul road, and 
construction laydown area. _ 

Source: Modified from PSEG 2015-TN4280. 


November 2015 


4-5 


NUREG-2168 








Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 



LULC Type 


AGRICULTURE 

C-3 CROP _AND AND PASTURE LAND 
C3 OTHER AGRICULTURE 
BARREN LANO 
It ALTERED LANDS 
FOREST 

tt P-1RAGMITES DOMINATED OLD FIELD 
ft DECIDUOUS BRUSH SHRU0LAND 
ft OLD FIELD i« 25% 5RJ5N COVERED 
C3 DECIDUOUS FOREST *S-5S% CROWN CLOSURE \ 

URBAN 

ft INOJSTRlA- 

tt OT“iER URBAN OR BUI-T-JP LAND 
ft PHRASMITES DOMINATED URBAN AREA 
ft RECREATICNA-LAND 

•t TRANSPORTATION COMMUNICATION JTIJTIES 
it L'p-AND RIGHTS-OF-WA_ v DEVELOPED 
ft UP-AND RIGHTSOF-WA.V UNOEVS-OPED 
03 RESIDENTIAL RURAL. SiNG.E UNIT 


WATER 

it ART IF 1CIA. _AKES 
C3 TIDAL RIVERS INLAND BAYS 
WETLANOS 


and otme« tidal waters 


C3 


FRESHWATER T-DAL MARSHES 
HERBACEOUS WET-ANDS 

PH RAG MITES DOMINATED INTERIOR WET-ANDS 
MANAGED WETLAND IN MAINTAINED LAWN GREENS PACE 
SALINE MARCH uOW MARSH 
PHRAGMITES DOMINATED COASTAL WETLANDS 
DECIDUOUS SCRUB SHRUB WETLANDS 
DISTURBED WETLANDS iMODIFIED) 

WET-AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY 

FORMER AGRICULTURAL WET_AND 'BECOMING SHRUBBY. NOT BJIlT-UP 
AGRICULTURAL WETLANDS (MODIFIED. 

MIXED SCRUB SHRUB WETLANDS (CONIFEROUS DOM 


* - 7 * 
y 


0 200 400 


WfU^r F trat i 
_ Plant 


Legend 

a Site Boundary Type 

77X Permanent Disturbance 
IXS Temporary Disturbance 


Figure 4-1. Land Use/Land Cover Impacted by Preconstruction and Construction at the 
PSEG Site (Source: Modified from PSEG 2015-TN4280) 

NUREG-2168 4-6 November 2015 



















Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


The 160 ac that would be temporarily disturbed on the PSEG Site includes approximately 80 ac 
of old field and Phragmites-tioir\'\r\a\.e6 old field; 32 ac of wetlands (primarily Phragmites- 
dominated interior wetlands); 45 ac of urban or built-up land; and 3 ac of water, barren land, and 
managed wetlands. Most of the old field and wetlands that would be temporarily disturbed are 
currently part of the Artificial Island CDF. The urban or built-up lands on the PSEG Site that 
would be temporarily disturbed have been or are being used for construction and operation of 
HCGS and SGS (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

The 45-ac offsite parcel that would be temporarily disturbed is part of the Artificial Island CDF 
and includes 30 ac of wetlands (primarily Phragmites- dominated interior wetlands), 13 ac of 
barren land, and 2 ac of urban or built-up land (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

PSEG stated that fill material would be needed to elevate a new nuclear power plant and 
associated structures to final grade at the PSEG Site (PSEG 2015-TN4280). During the 
Environmental Site Audit, PSEG stated that as much as 7.5 million yd 3 of fill material could be 
needed at the PSEG Site and that, to the extent possible, this material would come from the 
existing PSEG property. If additional fill material were needed from off the site, PSEG stated 
that it would come from existing permitted borrow areas and identified numerous potential 
borrow sites in New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland (PSEG 2012-TN2282). 

Of the 819-ac PSEG Site, both the 734-ac parcel owned by PSEG and the 85-ac parcel to be 
acquired by PSEG are zoned for “Industrial Use” by Lower Alloways Creek Township 
(LACT 1999-TN2416). Thus, building a new nuclear plant on the PSEG Site would be 
consistent with existing land uses at HCGS and SGS and with current land-use zoning. 

As discussed in Section 2.2.1, the NJDEP Division of Land Use Regulation has determined that 
the PSEG ESP application is consistent with State of New Jersey Rules on Coastal Zone 
Management as amended to January 20, 2009, with one condition: 

As proposed, the project will require a CAFRA [Coastal Areas Facilities Review 
Act (NJSA 13:19 et seq. -TN4304)] Individual Permit, Coastal Wetlands Permit, 
Waterfront Development Permit, and Freshwater Wetlands Individual Permit from 
the Division. These permits must be obtained prior to any construction activities 
on the site related to the project described above (NJDEP 2010-TN235). 

The New Jersey State Planning Commission State Plan Policy Map delineates a "Heavy 
Industry-Transportation-Utility Node"on Artificial Island, including 501 ac of the existing 734-ac 
PSEG property (see Section 2.2.1). PSEG has submitted a petition to expand this existing node 
from 501 ac to 534 ac (to include the location of a new nuclear power plant) and to add 288 ac 
of the USACE Artificial Island CDF. The PSEG petition is currently under review by the State 
(PSEG 2012-TN2282). If approved, this node expansion would facilitate the development of a 
new nuclear power plant on the PSEG Site. 

There are no prime farmlands or farmlands of unique or statewide importance on the PSEG Site 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280), and building a new nuclear power plant on the site would not affect any 
such farmlands in the vicinity. Likewise, there are no lands under Deeds of Conservation 
Restriction (DCRs) or Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) on the PSEG Site, and building a 


November 2015 


4-7 


NUREG-2168 



Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


new nuclear power plant on the site would not affect any of the lands under DCRs or lands in 
WMAs in the vicinity of the site (PSEG 2012-TN2282). 

Overall, the land-use impacts of building a new nuclear power plant on the PSEG Site would be 
sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, important attributes of existing land uses on 
the site. Much of the land disturbance (205 ac of a total of 430 ac) would be temporary, and the 
land would return to its existing use once preconstruction and construction activities were 
completed. However, most of the permanent land disturbance (143 ac of a total of 225 ac) 
would occur on Phragmites -dominated wetlands and artificial lakes, and much of this area 
(85 ac) is in the parcel that PSEG would acquire from the USACE. Land-use impacts on this 
85-ac parcel would be somewhat larger than those on the existing PSEG property because it 
supports the USACE dredging operations as part of the Artificial Island CDF. The Artificial 
Island CDF provides the USACE with dredge spoil disposal capacity adjacent to the Delaware 
River, and the USACE would need to replace some or all of this disposal capacity by using an 
existing CDF or developing a new CDF at another location. Combined, the change in land use 
of 143 ac from Phragmites -dominated wetlands and artificial lakes to developed and industrial 
uses and the USACE loss of dredge spoil disposal capacity at the Artificial Island CDF would 
alter noticeably, but not destabilize, existing land uses on the PSEG Site. 

Based on the information provided by PSEG and the review team independent review, the 
review team concludes that the combined land-use impacts of preconstruction and construction 
activities on the PSEG Site would be MODERATE, primarily because of the USACE loss of 
dredge spoil disposal capacity at the Artificial Island CDF. Based on this analysis, and because 
the NRC-authorized construction activities (i.e., power block construction) would occur on the 
85-ac parcel that PSEG would acquire from the USACE, the NRC staff concludes that the 
land-use impacts of the NRC-authorized construction would also be MODERATE. 

4.1.2 Offsite Areas 

As discussed in Section 2.2.2.3, PSEG proposes to build a three-lane elevated causeway from 
the northeast corner of the PSEG property along or adjacent to the existing Hope Creek-Red 
Lion transmission corridor to the intersection of Money Island Road and Mason Point Road 
(Figure 2-7). Portions of the causeway could affect jurisdictional wetlands and would be 
subject to USACE review and permit approval. The causeway would be about 5.0 mi long, have 
200-ft-wide rights-of-way (ROWs) in upland areas at the northern and southern termini, and 
have a 48-ft-wide structure for the elevated portions within lowland areas (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Land-use impacts associated with building the proposed causeway would result from land 
disturbance and changes in land use due to preconstruction activities. Preconstruction activities 
would be associated with road building at each end of the causeway and with building the piers 
on which the elevated causeway would be installed. Permanent impacts would result from the 
placement of structures (piers, pilings, or other support structures) and shading from the 
50-ft-wide causeway. Temporary impacts would result from the temporary placement of work 
mats to support equipment, materials, and personnel. 

As described by PSEG, these preconstruction activities would disturb up to 69.0 ac along the 
proposed causeway corridor. Of this total, 45.5 ac would be permanently disturbed to support 


NUREG-2168 


4-8 


November 2015 


Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


developed land uses associated with the causeway, and 23.5 ac would be temporarily disturbed 
for laydown and construction areas (Table 4-2). These areas of disturbance are based on a 
50-ft-wide permanent ROW and an additional 50-ft-wide area along the elevated portion to be 
temporarily affected during causeway construction (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 


Table 4-2. Offsite Land-Use Changes from Building the Proposed Causeway 


New Jersey Land-Use Category 

Total Acres 

Permanent 
Use (ac) 

Temporary 
Use (ac) 

Urban or Built-Up Land 

Residential, Rural, Single Unit 

1 

0.7 

0.3 

Wetlands Rights-of-Way 

1.6 

1.1 

0.5 

Upland Rights-of-Way Undeveloped 

2 

2 

0 

Recreational Land 

1 

0.4 

0.6 

Subtotal: 

5.6 

4.2 

1.4 

Agricultural Land 

Cropland and Pastureland 

10.9 

10.7 

0.2 

Agricultural Wetlands (modified) 

0.9 

0.9 

0 

Former Agricultural Wetlands (becoming shrubby, 

0.2 

0.2 

0 

not built-up) 

Other Agriculture 

0.6 

0.6 

0 

Subtotal: 

12.6 

12.4 

0.2 

Forestland 

Deciduous Forest (10%-50% crown closure) 

0.1 

0.1 

0 

Old Field (<25% brush covered) 

3.5 

3.4 

0.1 

Subtotal: 

3.6 

3.5 

0.1 

Water 

Tidal Rivers, Inland Bays, and Other Tidal Waters 

4.6 

2.4 

2.2 

Subtotal: 

4.6 

2.4 

2.2 

Wetlands 

Freshwater Tidal Marshes 

12.7 

6.1 

6.6 

Phragmites-Domlnated Coastal Wetlands 

22.3 

11.2 

11.1 

Herbaceous Wetlands 

1.2 

1.2 

0 

Mixed Scrub/Shrub Wetlands (coniferous 

0.1 

0.1 

0 

dominated) 

Phragmites-Dominated Interior Wetlands 

6.3 

4.4 

1.9 

Subtotal: 

42.6 

23 

19.6 

Total: 

69 

45.5 

23.5 

Source: Modified from PSEG 2015-TN4280. 





The 45.5 ac that would be permanently disturbed for the causeway includes 23 ac of wetlands 
(primarily Phragmites-dominaied coastal wetlands), 12.4 ac of agricultural land (cropland and 
pastureland), 3.5 ac of forestland, 2.4 ac of water, and 4.2 ac of urban or built-up land 
(associated with HCGS and SGS and lands along Money Island Road) (Table 4-2). The 
wetlands that would be permanently disturbed are located in areas that are part of the PSEG 
Estuary Enhancement Program (EEP), the Abbott’s Meadow WMA, and the Mad Horse Creek 


November 2015 


4-9 


NUREG-2168 






Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


WMA. The agricultural land that would be affected is no longer available for farming because it 
is too wet for agriculture (e.g., coastal marsh areas that were prime farmland when historically 
drained and used for salt hay production). The developed lands that would be affected include 
1.0 ac of residential land on Money Island Road (owned by PSEG with a structure used as a 
PSEG environmental project office) and 1.0 ac of recreational land (composed of several small 
areas located within the Abbott’s Meadow WMA and Mad Horse Creek WMA) (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280). 

The 23.5 ac that would be temporarily disturbed for the causeway includes 19.6 ac of wetland 
(primarily Phragmites-6orr\'\naie6 coastal wetlands and freshwater tidal marshes) and 2.2 ac of 
tidal waters. The wetlands that would be temporarily disturbed are located in areas that are part 
of the PSEG EEP, the Abbott’s Meadow WMA, and the Mad Horse Creek WMA (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280). 

The land area that would be disturbed for the proposed causeway from the PSEG property 
north to Lower Alloways Creek is zoned for Industrial Use by Lower Alloways Creek Township 
(LACT 1999-TN2416). However, the land area that would be disturbed from Lower Alloways 
Creek north to Money Island Road is zoned for Conservation by Elsinboro Township, while the 
land area that would be disturbed along Money Island Road is zoned Rural Residential 
(Elsinboro 2007-TN2417). Thus, building the causeway would be consistent with current zoning 
in Lower Alloways Creek Township but inconsistent with part of the current zoning (i.e., 
Conservation) in Elsinboro Township. PSEG could request a zoning variance from Elsinboro 
Township to build the proposed causeway in the area zoned for Conservation (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280). 

As discussed in Sections 2.2.1 and 4.1.1, the NJDEP Division of Land Use Regulation has 
determined that the PSEG ESP application, including the proposed causeway, is consistent with 
State of New Jersey Rules on Coastal Zone Management (NJDEP 2010-TN235). 

About 34 ac of land designated as prime and unique farmlands or farmlands of unique 
importance (based on soil type) would be affected by causeway construction (PSEG 2012- 
TN2282). 

Most of the proposed causeway route (4.0 mi or 21.0 ac of impact) is protected under DCRs 
held by the State of New Jersey (PSEG 2012-TN2282). These DCRs would have to be 
released by the State for the causeway to be built. About 2.0 mi (10.5 ac of impact) of the 
causeway route is located within the Alloway Creek Watershed Wetland Restoration (ACW) 

Site, which is part of the PSEG EEP (Figure 2-11) and subject to a DCR held by NJDEP. These 
ACW Site lands are privately owned by PSEG and were not purchased with funds from the 
State Green Acres Program, so approval from the NJDEP commissioner would be required to 
release the DCR. Before any release of the DCR, the NJDEP would conduct a public hearing 
and the NJDEP commissioner would review recommendations by NJDEP staff and consider the 
public interest in preserving the lands under the DCR. PSEG anticipates that it would have to 
provide the State with compensatory lands for any ACW Site lands released from the DCR 
(PSEG 2012-TN2282). 


NUREG-2168 


4-10 


November 2015 


Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


About 0.4 mi (0.8 ac of impact) of the causeway route is located within the Abbott’s Meadow 
WMA, which is located at the northern end of Money Island Road (Figure 2-11) (PSEG 2012- 
TN2282). The Abbott’s Meadow WMA is owned by the State of New Jersey and is subject to 
the DCR release provisions of the State Green Acres Program, the program used by NJDEP to 
acquire land for State parks, forests, natural areas, and WMAs. To release a DCR on land that 
is owned by the State and/or purchased with Green Acres Program funds, NJDEP would need 
to apply to the State House Commission for a disposal of land. Compensation for a major 
disposal of land is required under the Green Acres Program, and all such compensation must 
meet certain minimum requirements. The application for disposal must include an appraisal of 
the land to be disposed of (based on the highest value of the land) and an appraisal of the 
replacement land proposed as compensation. For successful applications, the State House 
Commission executes a release of the land to be disposed of and executes with the applicant 
an agreement releasing Green Acres Program restrictions on the land disposed and subjecting 
the replacement land to the Green Acres restrictions, if applicable (PSEG 2012-TN2282). 

For the DCR to be released on lands in the Abbott’s Meadow WMA, PSEG has identified 
compensatory lands at the Mason’s Point Site in Elsinboro Township, Salem County, near 
Alloway Creek, 2.5 mi upstream from the creek confluence with the Delaware River. Although 
most of the potential compensatory site is currently owned by the State, PSEG would purchase 
additional contiguous lands to offset the loss of deed restricted and/or State-owned land 
associated with the proposed causeway (PSEG 2012-TN2282). 

About 1.6 mi (9.7 ac of impact) of the causeway route is located within the Mad Horse Creek 
WMA (Figure 2-11), which is owned by the State of New Jersey (PSEG 2012-TN2282). PSEG 
has stated that there is no readily available record of the source of funding for the Mad Horse 
Creek WMA and no record of funding through the New Jersey Green Acres Program. PSEG 
has also stated that the diversion of lands for development of the causeway would be subject 
to essentially the same process as lands that had been purchased with Green Acres Program 
funding (PSEG 2012-TN2282). 

Overall, the land-use impacts of building the proposed causeway would be sufficient to alter 
noticeably, but not destabilize, important attributes of existing land uses. Some of the land 
disturbance (23.5 ac of a total of 69.0 ac) would be temporary, and the land would return to 
its existing use once the causeway was completed. However, most of the land disturbance 
(45.5 ac of a total of 69.0 ac) would be permanent and would have a noticeable impact because 
it would occur on undeveloped wetlands protected under DCRs within the ACW Site, the 
Abbott’s Meadow WMA, and the Mad Horse Creek WMA. Releasing these lands from the 
existing DCRs would require NJDEP to take various procedural actions and, for the WMAs, 
would require that PSEG provide compensatory land elsewhere. The change in land use to 
developed lands in these protected areas would alter noticeably, but not destabilize, existing 
land uses along the causeway route. 

Based on the information provided by PSEG and the review team’s independent review, the 
review team concludes that the land-use impacts of building the proposed causeway would be 
MODERATE, primarily because of the permanent change in land use within areas protected by 
DCRs. Because building the proposed causeway would not be part of the NRC-authorized 


November 2015 


4-11 


NUREG-2168 


Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


construction activities at the PSEG Site, the NRC staff concludes that there would be no land- 
use impacts along the causeway route due to the NRC-authorized construction. 

4.2 Water-Related Impacts 

Water-related impacts involved in building a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site would 
be similar to impacts that would be associated with any large industrial construction project and 
not much different than those seen during construction of the SGS and HCGS. 

Before initiating building activities, including any site preparation work, PSEG would be required 
to obtain the appropriate authorizations regulating alterations to the hydrological environment. 
These authorizations would likely include, but not be limited to, the following. Additional detail 
regarding the items listed is contained in Appendix H. 

• CWA (33 USC 1251 et seq. -TN662) Section 404 Permit . This permit would be issued by 
the USACE, which governs discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the 
United States. This permit requires both New Jersey and Delaware Coastal Zone 
Management Program concurrence. 

• Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of 1899 (33 USC 403 et sea. - 

TN660) Permit . This permit would be issued by the USACE to regulate any structure or 
work in, over, under, or affecting waters of the United States, such as construction and 
maintenance of intake, discharge, and barge structures in navigable waters of the Delaware 
River. This permit requires both New Jersey and Delaware Coastal Zone Management 
Program concurrence. 

• Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of 1899 (33 USC 403 et seq. - 

TN660) Permit . This permit would be issued by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) to regulate 
construction of the causeway across Alloway Creek. 

• Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 USC 1451 et seq. -TN1243) . Federal 
Consistency Determination has been made with conditions by NJDEP stating that the 
project submitted for NRC review is consistent with New Jersey’s Rules on Coastal Zone 
Management (NJDEP 2010-TN235). Delaware concurrence would be required for the 
USACE permit action. 

• CWA (33 USC 1251 et seq. -TN662) Section 401 Water Quality Certification . This 
certification would be issued by NJDEP and ensures that the project would not conflict with 
State and Federal water-quality management programs. This includes dredging and 
dewatering activities. 

• CWA (33 USC 1251 et seq. -TN662) Section 402(p) National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) Permit . This permit regulates limits of pollutants in liquid 
discharges to surface water. EPA has delegated the authority for administering the NPDES 
program in the State of New Jersey to NJDEP. A stormwater pollution prevention plan 
(SWPPP) and activities related to construction dewatering would be covered as part of the 
New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) permit. 

• NJDEP permits would be required for temporary dewatering and for the associated drilling of 
dewatering wells. 


NUREG-2168 


4-12 


November 2015 












Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


• NJDEP permits would be required for construction in the 100-year floodplain, in wetlands, 
and below the mean high water line. 

• A local permit would be required to construct and operate a system for treating dewatering 
effluent. 

4.2.1 Hydrological Alterations 

This section (1) identifies and describes proposed preconstruction and construction activities, 
including site preparation, onsite activities, and offsite activities that could result in hydrologic 
alterations; (2) describes and analyzes the resulting hydrologic alterations and the physical 
effects of these alterations on other water users: (3) analyzes the practices proposed to 
minimize hydrologic alterations having adverse impacts: and (4) assesses compliance with 
applicable Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American Tribal standards and 
regulations. 

Activities that could produce hydrologic alterations include the following: 

• raising the plant grade to the 36.9-ft North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) 
elevation, including filling of 40 ac of artificial lakes in the PSEG desilting basin and the 
Artificial Island CDF; 

• clearing land at the project site and building infrastructure such as roads and stormwater 
conveyance and retention systems; 

• building new structures (reactor containment structures, turbine buildings, cooling towers, 
electrical substations, subgrade piping and systems), roads/rails, and parking lots; 

• building cooling water intake and discharge structures on the Delaware River shoreline; 

• dredging nearshore areas of the Delaware River for water intake, water discharge, and 
barge access areas; 

• modifying the existing HCGS barge slip; 

• temporary disturbance of currently vegetated areas and wetlands for construction laydown 
areas, concrete batch plants, sand/gravel stockpiles, and construction-phase parking areas; 

• dewatering foundation excavations during construction; and 

• building the proposed causeway. 

4.2. 7.7 Surface Water 

Hydrologic alterations potentially affecting surface-water resources at and near the PSEG Site 
may occur as a result of filling of shallow artificial lakes, building activities, filling of coastal 
marshes and creeks, building activities within the Delaware River, and building in floodplains. 
These activities are described in the following sections. 

Artificial Lakes 

About 40 ac of shallow artificial lakes (referred to here as desilt basins) that exist on the PSEG 
Site and the Artificial Island CDF would be filled (see Table 4-1). These desilt basins are 


November 2015 


4-13 


NUREG-2168 



Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


normally hydrologically isolated from the surrounding landscape (i.e., have no surface-water 
flow to downstream areas). The desilt basins currently provide some retention of rainfall and 
stormwater runoff, and the retained water is lost from the desilt basins by infiltration and 
evaporation. As a result of filling the desilt basins, runoff from this area would increase. The 
runoff would be collected in engineered stormwater detention basins and would be released to 
the Delaware River in a controlled manner (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Because of the small area of 
the desilt basins compared to the area of the Delaware River Basin near the PSEG Site, the 
increased runoff from the filled area is expected to be minor compared to the discharge of the 
Delaware River. Therefore, filling the desilt basins is not expected to affect any downstream 
areas noticeably. 

The desilt basins are identified in the jurisdictional determination of wetlands conducted by the 
USACE (2013-TN3283). Impacts to wetlands are described in Section 4.3.1. 

Land Disturbance 

Preconstruction and construction activities related to a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG 
Site would result in permanent structures occupying about 225 ac. This would include 108 ac of 
lands mapped as wetland cover type and 43 ac of open water areas associated with artificial 
lakes and tidal waters (see Table 4-1). Phragmites- dominated coastal and interior (nontidal) 
wetlands account for 102 ac of the 108 ac of wetlands within permanent use areas. Actual 
disturbance of these wetland areas would be further refined and minimized during the detailed 
design phase subsequent to the selection of a reactor technology (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

In addition to permanent changes in land use within the PSEG Site, preconstruction and 
construction activities would result in temporary changes in land use to 160 ac within the PSEG 
Site and 45 ac in adjacent offsite areas. Lands impacted by these temporary use areas would 
include 45 ac of developed lands, 80 ac of disturbed old field or Phragmites-dominaied old field, 
and about 32 ac of lands mapped by NJDEP as wetlands (Table 4-1). Phragmites-6om\r\a\.e6 
interior wetlands (24 ac) account for the majority of wetland impacts in these temporary use 
areas. 

The 45 ac in the adjacent offsite Artificial Island CDF would also be used temporarily to support 
building activities. A total of 42 ac of lands mapped as wetlands by NJDEP would be used to 
support the batch plant and other temporary uses. The primary land uses impacted in this area 
include Phragmites-dominaied wetlands (coastal and interior, 29 ac) and disturbed wetlands 
(modified, 12 ac) (Table 4-1). 

The proposed causeway would provide vehicular access to a new plant at the PSEG Site. 

A total of 69 ac would be impacted by building this causeway, 45.5 ac permanently and 23.5 ac 
temporarily. Permanent impacts would result from the placement of structures (piers, pilings, or 
other support structures) in the wetlands and shading from the 50-ft-wide causeway. 

Temporary impacts would result from the temporary placement of work mats on the wetlands to 
support equipment, materials, and personnel. The majority of the impacts would be to open 
water and wetlands. Impacts to lands mapped as agricultural lands would account for 12.6 ac 
of the 69 ac, while open water, forest, and urban land use would account for the remaining 
acreage (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 


NUREG-2168 


4-14 


November 2015 





Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Potential erosion and sedimentation from preconstruction and construction activities would be 
controlled using appropriate best management practices (BMPs) as specified by the PSEG 
SWPPP (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The SWPPP contains an inspection and monitoring plan for 
verifying that BMPs are working following rainfall events during preconstruction and 
construction. Preconstruction activities would include the development of features that function 
as permanent stormwater management systems. Such features would be developed in the 
detailed site design and would include permanent grading and drainage features to manage 
stormwater runoff. Surface-water discharges would be managed using sediment traps and 
sedimentation basins to remove suspended solids before discharge to the Delaware River. 
BMPs, including both structural and nonstructural BMPs, would be implemented as required in 
NJPDES construction activity permits and regulations to reduce erosion and minimize the risk of 
discharges of all pollutants (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Coastal Wetland and Marsh Creeks 

Coastal streams and marsh creeks would be altered by filling that would result in elimination of 
7,265 ft of creek channels and isolation of 2,320 ft of creek channels from tidal connection. 
Additionally, the proposed causeway would cross 2,123 ft of creek channels. PSEG would use 
BMPs during preconstruction and construction activities, and those activities would be 
temporary (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The elimination of 7,265 ft of creek channels represents a 
0.7 percent decrease in total creek length within the PSEG EEP area and an even smaller 
percentage if all creeks in the vicinity of the PSEG Site are considered. 

Because the marsh creeks are within the 100-year floodplain, filling them would result in 
alterations of the surface-water pathways and surface runoff volume and discharge. These 
alterations could affect the flood-carrying capacity of the floodplain. However, as stated in 
Section 2.3.1.1, the 100-year floodplain near the PSEG Site is controlled by storm surges, and 
therefore, the contiguous floodplain is vast, consisting of low-lying coastal areas. The applicant 
estimated that the area of the 100-year floodplain within a 6-mi radius of the PSEG Site is 
59,681 ac or 93.5 mi 2 (PSEG 2012-TN2244). Because the creek channels that would be 
eliminated make up a small percentage (not exceeding 0.7 percent) of the total creek length in 
the vicinity of the PSEG Site, the loss of floodplain adjacent to the eliminated marsh creek 
channels would result in alteration to a correspondingly small area of the 100-year floodplain. 
Therefore, the review team determined that the effect on the 100-year floodplain would not be 
noticeable. Stormwater runoff from this area would be collected in engineered detention basins 
and would be released to the Delaware River in a controlled manner (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 
Because the filling of marsh creeks is expected to result in alteration of a small area compared 
to the area of the 100-year floodplain near the PSEG Site, and because stormwater runoff 
would be released to the Delaware River in a controlled manner, the effect of this alteration on 
the 100-year floodplain and the Delaware River, both in terms of water quantity and quality, 
would be minimal. 

Isolation of marsh creeks from tidal connection would reduce the discharge to the tidal areas. 
However, because the tidal area is vast and the expected area altered by isolation of marsh 
creek is also small compared to the contiguous floodplain near the PSEG Site, the effect on the 
tidal areas near the PSEG Site would be minimal. 


November 2015 


4-15 


NUREG-2168 


Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


The proposed causeway would cross marsh creeks and would have landing areas for piers to 
support the elevated roadway. These landing areas are expected to be few and would also be 
very small in size compared to the tidal areas and the 100-year floodplain near the PSEG Site 
(PSEG 2012-TN2244). Because the crossing of the marsh creeks by the proposed causeway 
would only alter small areas compared to the tidal areas and the 100-year floodplain near the 
PSEG Site, and because BMPs would be in use during preconstruction activities, the effect of 
this alteration on the tidal areas and the 100-year floodplain would be minimal. 

Delaware River 

The Delaware River near the PSEG Site would be altered by installation of the new intake 
structure and the new barge facility and by dredging needed for installation of the new 
structures and the existing HCGS barge slip (PSEG 2015-TN4280). About 9.5 ac of coastal 
wetlands and shallow water areas would be filled along the Delaware River shoreline near the 
PSEG Site. The altered shoreline would be protected from erosion using placement of concrete 
or riprap. The shoreline and shallow water areas would be dredged to provide adequate depth 
for the new intake and the new barge facility. The bottom of the Delaware River near the new 
intake and the new barge facility would be deepened 4.5 ft over a 31-ac area, and 4.5 ft over a 
61-ac area, respectively. The dredged area would extend about 1,700 ft laterally from the 
shoreline into the river. The dredging is expected to enlarge the cross-sectional area of the 
Delaware River by 2.5 to 3.5 percent, which could result in a proportionally reduced average 
velocity (PSEG 2015-TN4280). However, these changes are expected to be minimal because 
they are a small percentage of the total area. 

The material dredged from the Delaware River is estimated to be 665,000 yd 3 in volume and 
would be disposed of on the site or at another approved upland disposal site. PSEG proposes 
to use hydraulic suction dredging to minimize increases in turbidity and sedimentation and limit 
the duration of dredging (PSEG 2015-TN4234). PSEG would be required to comply with 
requirements of CWA Sections 10 and 404 and NJDEP permits. PSEG would also use BMPs 
to minimize disturbance of bottom sediment and its delivery farther out into the Delaware River 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). These preconstruction activities would be temporary and localized. 
Because (1) the disturbance to the Delaware River would be controlled by CWA Sections 10 
and 404 and NJDEP permits that are protective of the environment and (2) PSEG would use 
BMPs and the preconstruction activities would be temporary and localized, the review team 
concludes that the effects of these alterations to the Delaware River would be minimal. 

Floodplains 

Preconstruction and construction activities would alter the 100-year floodplain near the PSEG 
Site by placing fill material in about 152 ac of onsite and offsite areas. As described in 
Section 2.3.1.1, the 1 percent annual exceedance flood water surface elevation at the 
confluence of the Delaware River and Alloway Creek is 8.9 ft National Geodetic Vertical Datum 
of 1929 (NAVD29; FEMA 1982-TN3214) or 8.1 ft NAVD88. Because the 100-year floodplain 
near the PSEG Site is controlled by storm surges, the contiguous floodplain is vast, consisting 
of the low-lying coastal areas. PSEG estimated that the area of the 100-year floodplain within a 
6-mi radius of the PSEG Site is 59,681 ac or 93.5 mi 2 (PSEG 2012-TN2244). 


NUREG-2168 


4-16 


November 2015 



Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


The filling of 152 ac on and off the site in the 100-year floodplain could change the flood- 
carrying capacity of the floodplain. However, because the 100-year floodplain at and near the 
PSEG Site is controlled by storm surges and has a very large, contiguous area several hundred 
times larger than the filled area in the vicinity of the PSEG Site, the review team concludes that 
the effects of this alteration on the 100-year floodplain would be minimal. 

4.2.1.2 Groundwater 

Building activities that are expected to alter groundwater hydrology at the PSEG Site are 
placement of high hydraulic conductivity structural fill in safety-related excavations (including the 
nuclear island), placement of fill to raise the plant grade to 36.9 ft NAVD88, placement of 
impervious surfaces, and stormwater rerouting. In addition, a low-permeability curtain wall 
would be placed from the land surface partway into the nuclear island excavation to reduce 
inflow during dewatering operations. These activities are expected to minimally alter the spatial 
and temporal pattern of infiltration and recharge at the site and to alter groundwater flow 
directions in the shallow aquifers in the immediate vicinity of the site. Building activities that are 
expected to alter the groundwater hydrology over a wider area are dewatering of the 
construction excavation and use of groundwater to support construction needs. 

Dewatering would be required during construction of the nuclear island and would reduce 
groundwater heads in the hydrogeologic units affected by the excavation. The nuclear island 
would be excavated to an elevation of -67 ft NAVD88, which is through the hydraulic fill, the 
alluvium, and the Cape May (identified in the ER as the Kirkwood) Formation and into the top of 
the Vincentown Formation (see Figure 2-18). The review team expects that the effects of 
dewatering would be confined to the shallow alluvium and Vincentown aquifer due to the low- 
permeability formations underlying the Vincentown aquifer. The applicant has confirmed plans 
to use vertical low-permeability barriers to limit horizontal inflow into the excavation 
(PSEG 2015-TN4283), which would also limit the horizontal extent of the effects of the 
dewatering. In addition, a drop in shallow groundwater elevation as a result of dewatering is not 
expected to affect water levels in local wetlands because of the poor hydraulic connection 
between the shallow aquifers and the wetlands and because the wetlands are hydraulically 
connected (tidal) to the Delaware River (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Groundwater from four production wells within the middle and lower Potomac-Raritan-Magothy 
(PRM) aquifers is currently used to supply water for operation of the SGS and HCGS units at 
the PSEG Site. There are also two unused backup wells in the Wenonah-Mount Laurel aquifer. 
To support construction of a new nuclear power plant, an additional 119 gpm of groundwater 
would be pumped from two new production wells, which the applicant has reported would be 
located within the PRM aquifers (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Based on current permitted pumping 
limits, the applicant has flexibility to locate the new wells in the upper, middle, or lower PRM 
aquifers. Water for construction would be for potable use, for dust suppression, and to supply 
water to the concrete batch plant. This additional groundwater use would lower groundwater 
heads and has the potential to affect salinity levels within the PRM aquifers. However, these 
effects would be limited due to several factors: NJDEP water management practices, which 
have reduced groundwater use within the PRM aquifers over time; the small contribution of site 
use to overall regional aquifer use and aquifer capacity; limited hydraulic communication 


November 2015 


4-17 


NUREG-2168 


Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


between the PRM aquifers and the overlying Wenonah-Mount Laurel aquifer; and distance to 
other nearby water supply wells. 

4.2.2 Water-Use Impacts 

This section describes, analyzes, and assesses the potential water-use impacts of building a 
new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site. It includes analysis and evaluation of proposed 
practices to minimize adverse impacts on water use. 

4.2.2.1 Surface- Water- Use Impacts 

Surface water would not be used to support building activities at the PSEG Site. The brackish 
nature of the Delaware River near the PSEG Site makes the surface water undesirable for 
building. Small amounts of water from stormwater retention ponds might be used for dust 
suppression during building of a new nuclear power plant (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Because the 
amount of water used from these retention ponds would be relatively small, the review team 
determined that the water-use impacts on the surface-water resource would be SMALL. 

4.2.2.2 Groundwater-Use Impacts 

As described in Section 4.2.1.2, a number of construction-related activities could alter 
groundwater hydrology at and near the site. Placement of fill to raise the plant grade, 
placement of structural fill in safety-related excavations, placement of impervious surfaces, and 
stormwater rerouting would affect infiltration and recharge at the site and alter groundwater flow 
directions within the shallow aquifers in the vicinity of the site. However, impacts on 
groundwater use would be limited because the construction period would be temporary and the 
aquifers affected are hydraulically isolated by the Delaware River and the tidally influenced 
wetlands. In addition, the nearest groundwater users are 3 to 5 mi from the site, and the 
shallow aquifers affected by construction are not used as a water supply source due to their 
salinity. 

The greatest potential effects of construction on groundwater uses and users would be from two 
primary activities: (1) dewatering to facilitate power block construction and (2) groundwater 
pumping for preconstruction and construction support (including concrete batch plant supply, 
potable water, and dust suppression). 

Dewatering 

During construction, excavation would occur throughout the entire plant area. The deepest 
excavation would occur at the nuclear island foundation where the hydraulic fill, alluvium, and 
Cape May (identified in the ER as the Kirkwood) Formation would be completely removed. The 
nuclear island excavation would extend to a competent foundation layer within the Vincentown 
Formation at an elevation of about -67 ft NAVD88. There would be two sets of dewatering 
wells: a shallow set along the perimeter of the plant area excavation and a deeper set installed 
along the perimeter of the deeper nuclear island excavation. Dewatering flow rates would be 
reduced by the installation of low-permeability soil-retention barriers along both the shallow and 
deep excavation perimeter walls (PSEG 2015-TN4283). 


NUREG-2168 


4-18 


November 2015 



Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


The applicant used groundwater flow modeling to determine dewatering rates and the effects of 
dewatering on existing structures important to safety at the HCGS and SGS. The applicant’s 
dewatering model (MACTEC 2009-TN3323) was based on site-specific geology and either 
site-specific (when available) or regional values for hydraulic conductivity and other hydraulic 
parameters. The dewatering model considered all geologic layers from the hydraulic fill at the 
land surface to the Wenonah-Mount Laurel aquifer, which is underlain by the Marshalltown 
aquitard. The groundwater dewatering model domain covered the PSEG Site and extended 
7,520 ft in a north-south direction and 7,000 ft in an east-west direction. The model was 
bounded to the west and south by the Delaware River and to the north and east by tidally 
recharged wetland areas. Because the domain of the model was constrained to the site vicinity, 
the review team concluded that the results could not be used as the sole basis for estimating 
impacts to groundwater beyond the tidally recharged wetland areas. 

The model results were used by the review team to inform the evaluation of offsite impacts. 
Based on the results of modeling, PSEG estimated that initial dewatering rates would be 
between 5,200 and 5,600 gpm, but as the shallow groundwater system adjusted to pumping, 
the rate would diminish over time to between 3,400 and 5,400 gpm. These rates do not include 
influx of water from storm events, which would be temporary and involve a relatively small 
volume of water (PSEG 2015-TN4283). The greatest drawdown in groundwater head is 
predicted to occur within the Vincentown aquifer. The extent of drawdown would be limited west 
and south of the site because the Vincentown aquifer is hydraulically connected to the Delaware 
River. If drawdown extends beyond the site boundary to the north and east, the review team 
concludes that the impact on groundwater use would be limited because salinity within the 
Vincentown aquifer is well above drinking water standards and the aquifer is not used as a 
source of potable water near the site. Because the nearest offsite groundwater use is 3 to 5 mi 
from the site, and the most significant drawdown is largely confined to the site, dewatering 
during construction is not expected to affect other uses and users of groundwater near the site. 

During dewatering, it is possible that pumping might induce flow upward from the Wenonah- 
Mount Laurel aquifer through the Navesink-Hornerstown aquitard and into the Vincentown 
aquifer. The applicant’s model did not specify the amount of potential upwelling from the 
Wenonah-Mount Laurel aquifer, but potential flow amounts could be inferred based upon the 
applicant’s sensitivity analysis. In this analysis, when vertical conductivity of the Navesink 
aquitard was reduced by a factor of 2 and all other parameters were held constant, total flow out 
of the wells was reduced by about 200 gpm (PSEG 2015-TN4283). This indicated that during 
pumping, 200 gpm or more could be pulled upward from the Navesink aquitard and the 
underlying Wenonah-Mount Laurel aquifer. 

The review team performed calculations to independently verify the amount of potential upward 
flow induced by dewatering. Based on the drawdown contours shown in Figure 2.4.12-27 of the 
PSEG SSAR (PSEG 2015-TN4283) and a vertical hydraulic conductivity of the Navesink- 
Hornerstown confining unit of 0.005 ft/d, consistent with SSAR Table 2.4.12-1 and information 
provided by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (Voronin 2003-TN2947), upward flow during 
dewatering was estimated to be 150 gpm. This relatively small amount of upward flow is not 
likely to significantly affect flows in the Wenonah-Mount Laurel aquifer, particularly since the 
impact would be temporary. In addition, the nearest wells potentially within the Wenonah-Mount 
Laurel aquifer are the HCGS and SGS standby potable water supply wells, which are not 


November 2015 


4-19 


NUREG-2168 


Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


routinely pumped. As discussed in Section 2.3, the nearest offsite wells are several miles away. 
Because of their distance from the PSEG Site, these wells are not likely to be affected by the 
upward flow induced by dewatering. 

The shallow hydraulic fills act as an aquitard that currently creates perched conditions. The 
applicant has stated that during completion of the nuclear island the excavation would be 
completely backfilled with a structural fill that would form a permeable hydraulic conduit 
connecting the perched groundwater with the Vincentown aquifer. As a result, the 
potentiometric surface in this area in these aquifers would be similar, and dewatering might 
induce flow from the river and nearby wetlands. Any potential impact on wetlands would be 
localized and would be offset by the twice-daily tidal recharge. 

Groundwater Pumping for Preconstruction and Construction Support 

Water-use requirements for construction of a new nuclear plant are similar to those for other 
large industrial construction projects. Building a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site 
would use on average 119 gpm of groundwater to support concrete batch plant operations, 
dust suppression, and potable use (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The existing water supply system 
currently provides 379 gpm to support HCGS and SGS operations. The existing water 
allocation permits allow for an additional withdrawal of sufficient capacity to provide the 
groundwater needed to support new plant construction (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Water-use impacts from the withdrawal of groundwater to support plant operations are 
evaluated in Section 5.2.2.2 and are determined to be SMALL. The same wells would be used 
to supply groundwater for construction and for plant operation. Because the construction- 
related groundwater use (119 gpm) would be less than the proposed use for plant operation 
(210 gpm) and construction withdrawals would occur for a shorter period of time, water-use 
impacts from construction would be bounded by the impacts from operation. The review team 
therefore concludes that water-use impacts from groundwater withdrawals to support 
construction would be minor. 

Groundwater-Use Impacts Summary 

Factors that would limit the impacts of construction and preconstruction activities on 
groundwater use in the area are (1) the temporary nature of excavation dewatering and the 
planned use of low-permeability soil-retention barriers to limit inflow from surrounding shallow 
formations; (2) the alluvium and Vincentown aquifer have salinity levels above drinking water 
standards, are not potable, and are not used near the site; and (3) potential impacts to shallow 
water-bearing units may be offset by inflows from the Delaware River and tidally influenced 
wetlands. In addition, impacts from construction pumping in the middle PRM aquifer are 
bounded by the impacts from pumping to support plant operation, which the review team 
determined to be SMALL (Section 5.2.2.2). As a result, the review team concludes that the 
groundwater-use impacts of construction and preconstruction would be SMALL and no further 
mitigation would be warranted. 


NUREG-2168 


4-20 


November 2015 



Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


4.2.3 Water-Quality Impacts 

The water-quality impacts of building a new nuclear power plant are similar to those associated 
with the development of any large industrial site. This section includes identification of the 
activities associated with preconstruction and construction activities related to a new nuclear 
power plant at the PSEG Site that could affect surface and groundwater quality and analysis 
and evaluation of proposed practices to minimize adverse impacts on water quality by these 
activities. The impacts on surface water and groundwater are discussed in Section 4.2.3.1 and 
Section 4.2.3.2, respectively. 

4.2.3 .7 Surface- Water- Quality Impacts 

As with any similar large building project, building a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site 
could affect nearby surface water bodies during site-preparation and building activities. The 
site-preparation and building activities that could affect surface water include clearing 
vegetation, disturbing the land surface, inadvertent release of contaminants associated with 
building materials and equipment, activities in the tidal marsh and tidal stream areas during 
building of the proposed causeway, and dredging activities in the Delaware River. Because of 
alteration of the land surface, alteration of surface cover, and changes to drainage patterns, 
both the quantity and quality of the surface runoff from the site may change and result in 
impacts to the quality of the surface-water resources near the site. 

Because a reactor design for the PSEG Site has not been finalized, the details of site layout, 
grading plan, and drainage design have not been determined. However, PSEG estimates that a 
new nuclear power plant would require permanent development of about 50 ac of onsite land 
and temporary use of about 39 ac of onsite and 3 ac of offsite lands (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 
These areas would be cleared and regraded and would host construction material and 
equipment. As stated in Section 3.4.2.2, the site would be graded such that runoff from the site 
and power block area would be directed to a system of swales and pipes that would discharge 
to the Delaware River. The site would drain to the north and west, away from the existing SGS 
and HCGS facilities. PSEG would be required to obtain an NJPDES permit for stormwater 
discharges resulting from the building activities and to develop an SWPPP that defined BMPs 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

BMPs could consist of structural (such as the use of sedimentation basins) and nonstructural 
(such as erosion control) methods to meet discharge water-quality requirements. The nature 
of the PSEG Site, the building methods used, available sediment, and potential contaminants 
related to building activities are not substantially different from any other large-scale project. 
BMPs have been successfully used in SWPPPs to mitigate the effects of runoff from building 
sites and to minimize contaminants that adversely affect water quality. The Delaware River 
would receive the stormwater discharge from the PSEG Site. The Delaware River near the 
PSEG Site is influenced by tidal action, and the tidal flux greatly exceeds the freshwater 
discharge (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Therefore, the review team has determined that the 
controlled release of stormwater discharge would have minimal impact on the Delaware River 
near the PSEG Site. 


November 2015 


4-21 


NUREG-2168 


Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


To support building the new intake structure, the new discharge pipeline, and the new barge 
slip, dredging and filling within the Delaware River would be required. In addition, the existing 
barge slip would be deepened and therefore would require dredging. To build the new barge 
facility and the new intake structure, the Delaware River bottom would be lowered 4.5 ft over a 
92-ac area, requiring dredging of 665,000 yd 3 of sediment (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The dredged 
area would extend 1,700 ft into the Delaware River from the shoreline. The dredged material 
would be disposed of at an onsite or other approved upland disposal facility (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280). Sediment disturbed during these activities would settle after the activities were 
completed and is not expected to have a long-term impact. The area of these activities would 
be a small fraction of the area of the Delaware Bay and Delaware River Estuary, and the 
dredged and deepened area would increase the Delaware River cross section by less than 
3.5 percent. The total volume of sediments to be dredged for the proposed plant would be 
about 4 percent of the initial dredged volume for the main channel deepening project, which the 
USACE concluded would have water-quality impacts that are not significant (USACE 1997- 
TN2281; USACE 2009-TN2663; USACE 2011-TN2262; USACE 2013-TN2851). As described 
in Section 2.3.3.1, the majority of sediment samples in Delaware River Basin Commission 
(DRBC) Water Quality Zone 5 (where Artificial Island is located) evaluated in the Delaware 
Estuary Regional Sediment Management Plan (DERSMPW 2013-TN4204) were determined to 
be suitable or potentially suitable for aquatic habitat and upland beneficial uses. 

Dredging activities would require permits under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors 
Appropriation Act of 1899 (33 USC 403 et seq. -TN660) for dredging and filling in the navigable 
waters of the United States and Section 404 of the CWA (33 USC 1251 et seq. -TN662) for 
dredging and filling in waters of the United States. Specific sediment sampling, water-quality 
monitoring, and BMPs would also be required as part of the NJDEP dredging permit process 
(NJDEP 1997-TN4206). Dredging and filling activities would be temporary and occur during the 
building, placement, or improvement of the facilities. BMPs would be used during the dredging 
activity. Therefore, the review team has determined that dredging and filling activities in the 
Delaware River for building new facilities and improvement of existing facilities would cause only 
a minor and temporary impact to surface-water quality. 

The proposed causeway would be an elevated structure, but the landing sites of piers would 
require building activities in coastal wetlands and marshes. The building activities would be 
limited to the landing sites of piers and to any needed access roads. Because of the elevated, 
spanned nature of the causeway, placement of fill in the coastal area would be minimized. The 
causeway would cross 2,123 ft of marsh creeks (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Building the causeway 
would be similar to building any other elevated roadway, and building techniques for pier landing 
areas would also be similar and use sediment erosion and delivery control methods similar to 
other construction activities. Because the causeway would cross navigable waters, PSEG 
would be required to obtain a permit from the USCG under Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors 
Appropriation Act of 1899 (33 USC 403 et seq. -TN660) and a permit from the USACE under 
Section 404 of the CWA (33 USC 1251 et seq. -TN662). The potential impact to water quality 
due to sediment delivery from building areas for the causeway would also be temporary and 
localized. Because building techniques would help reduce the volume of fill, sediment erosion 
and delivery controls would be used, appropriate permits would require the applicant to 
minimize impacts to water quality, and any potential impacts would be localized and temporary, 


NUREG-2168 


4-22 


November 2015 





Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


the review team has determined that the impacts to water quality from building the proposed 
causeway would be minor. 

Because engineering controls (BMPs, silt fences, detention basins, etc.) regulated by a 
combination of NJPDES and USACE permitting would be in use during building activities, the 
building-related impacts on surface-water quality would be controlled, localized, and temporary. 
Therefore, the review team has determined that the impacts on surface-water quality would be 
SMALL. 

4.2.3.2 Groundwater- Quality Impacts 

The site-preparation and building activities that could affect groundwater include inadvertent 
chemical spills, excavation dewatering, discharge of groundwater to adjacent surface water 
bodies, and use of groundwater from the PRM aquifers. Potential groundwater-quality impacts 
from these activities are discussed below. 

During preconstruction and construction, gasoline, diesel fuel, hydraulic lubricants, and other 
similar products would be used for construction equipment. BMPs would be used to minimize 
potential discharges to the environment. NJDEP requires that chemical discharges to the soils 
and groundwater be reported and subsequently remediated to prevent longer term impacts to 
groundwater quality (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Based on the use of BMPs and NJDEP remediation 
requirements, the review team concludes that the effect on groundwater quality of an 
inadvertent chemical spill would be localized and temporary. As a result, the impacts to 
groundwater quality would be minor. 

Dewatering the power block area would alter the shallow groundwater flow patterns, but it is not 
anticipated to alter groundwater quality. Because the two upper water-bearing zones, the 
alluvium and the Vincentown aquifer, are in hydraulic communication with the Delaware River, 
saline water from the river may be drawn into the groundwater as a result of the dewatering. 
However, the alluvium and Vincentown aquifer are currently too saline to be used as a potable 
water source in the vicinity of the PSEG Site (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Likewise, any upward 
groundwater flow from the Wenonah-Mount Laurel aquifer induced by the dewatering would not 
adversely affect the water quality of the saline water in the Vincentown aquifer. 

Other potential effects associated with the dewatering of the power block area pertain to the 
release of the excess water to adjoining water bodies. Groundwater pumped from dewatering 
wells within the construction areas would be free of fine materials due to the use of well screens 
and would be discharged directly to the Delaware River. Water withdrawn from open surface 
excavations would be pumped to an onsite settling basin before being discharged through a 
permitted NJPDES outfall. PSEG would develop BMPs for soil erosion control as required by 
applicable Federal and State permits and regulations. Once dewatering is no longer needed, 
the water table is expected to return to static conditions. 

As discussed in Section 4.2.2.2, during construction of a new nuclear power plant, an additional 
119 gpm of groundwater for potable use, dust suppression, and the concrete batch plant would 
be supplied from two new production wells within the PRM aquifer zones (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 
This additional groundwater use has the potential to impact salinity levels within the PRM 


November 2015 


4-23 


NUREG-2168 


Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


aquifers. Because the construction-related groundwater use (119 gpm) is less than the 
proposed use for plant operation (210 gpm), and construction withdrawals would occur for a 
shorter period of time, water-quality impacts from construction would be bounded by the impacts 
from operation. Groundwater-quality impacts from plant operation are discussed in 
Section 5.2.3.2 and are determined to be SMALL. The review team therefore concludes that 
water-quality impacts from groundwater withdrawals to support construction would be minor. 

Factors that would limit the impacts of preconstruction and construction activities on 
groundwater quality in the area are (1) the use of PSEG BMPs for spill prevention and cleanup; 

(2) the temporary nature of excavation dewatering and construction-related pumping; and 

(3) the fact that the alluvium and Vincentown aquifer have salinity levels above drinking water 
standards, are not potable water sources, and are not used near the site. In addition, impacts 
from construction pumping in the middle PRM aquifer are bounded by the impacts from 
pumping to support plant operation, which were determined by the review team to be SMALL 
(Section 5.2.3.2). As a result, the review team concludes that the impacts of the proposed 
action on groundwater quality would be limited in magnitude, localized, and temporary, and 
therefore SMALL. 

4.2.4 Hydrological Monitoring 

Proposed hydrological and chemical monitoring during preconstruction and construction are 
described in Sections 6.3.2 and 6.6.2 of the PSEG ER (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Water 
discharges during building activities would be monitored in accordance with applicable NJPDES 
permit requirements and State water-quality standards (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Stormwater and 
dewatering discharges would be monitored. PSEG would be required to develop an SWPPP 
that would specify the inspection methods and BMPs used to limit the impacts of construction 
discharges to surface water (PSEG 2015-TN4280). In addition, any known chemical, fuel oil, or 
hydraulic fluid spills would be reported to NJDEP and remediated according to New Jersey spill 
response requirements (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Delaware River monitoring required by HCGS 
and SGS permits would continue during preconstruction and construction activities. 

Groundwater levels would be monitored in existing shallow wells to confirm that the HCGS and 
SGS facilities are not adversely affected by dewatering and to evaluate any changes in water 
quality to the alluvium and Vincentown aquifer. Monitoring of the Wenonah-Mount Laurel and 
PRM aquifers required by the HCGS and SGS water allocation permit would continue during 
preconstruction and construction activities, providing data on groundwater heads and salinity in 
these aquifers. 

Water-quality samples would be collected, preserved (if applicable), and transported according 
to NJDEP chain of custody requirements and those of the analytical laboratory performing the 
analyses (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The NRC staff has verified that the analytical laboratories 
used by PSEG are certified by NJDEP. 

4.3 Ecological Impacts 

If a new nuclear power plant were to be constructed at the PSEG Site, preconstruction activities 
would start with site mobilization, including building the causeway, barge facility, laydown areas, 


NUREG-2168 


4-24 


November 2015 


Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


heavy haul road, and temporary utility supply systems. This preconstruction/site mobilization 
phase would continue for 1 to 3 years, during which time most impacts to onsite terrestrial 
habitats, wetlands, marsh creeks, and artificial ponds would occur. Construction-phase impacts 
would occur over a period of about 5 years, when site activities would include site excavation 
and construction of safety-related structures (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Section 4.3.1 provides a discussion of the potential environmental impacts of preconstruction 
and construction upon terrestrial resources, while Section 4.3.2 provides a discussion of the 
potential impacts upon aquatic resources. 

4.3.1 Terrestrial and Wetland Impacts 

This section describes potential impacts to terrestrial resources resulting from preconstruction 
and construction activities, which are also referred to as building activities, at the PSEG Site. 

4.3. 7.7 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources - Site and Vicinity 

Impacts on Habitats 

Proposed ground-disturbing activities at the PSEG Site and offsite areas are based on the 
PSEG Site Utilization Plan (Figure 2-2) in Section 2.1 and uses NJDEP LULC classification 
system. Permanent land impacts are represented by crosshatched areas and temporary land 
impacts by diagonally hatched areas in Figure 2-2. Potential areas of impact include the power 
block, cooling tower, concrete batch plant, intake structure, switchyard, offices and warehouses, 
heavy haul road, temporary laydown areas, parking areas, and proposed causeway. Building 
activities include clearing, grubbing, and grading the site; installing erosion-control measures; 
building access and haul roads; installing construction security infrastructure; installing 
temporary utilities and facilities (e.g., storage warehouses, concrete batch plant); preparing the 
laydown, fabrication, and shop areas; relocating existing facilities within the PSEG Site; staging 
equipment; and conducting preparation activities associated with power plant construction 
support. The applicant has not determined the type of reactor to be built on the site and is using 
a plant parameter envelope (PPE) to bound associated construction and preconstruction 
impacts. The terrestrial ecology impacts represented in this section are based on the PPE, and 
the actual limits of disturbance (particularly wetlands and jurisdictional streams) may be further 
minimized during the design phase after a specific reactor technology is selected. PSEG 
anticipates that once a design is selected, and if the NRC approves of a CP or COL, 
construction and preconstruction activities could take 68 months to complete (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280). 

Building activities would result in the permanent or temporary disturbance of about 385 ac of the 
PSEG Site, 45 ac of adjacent offsite areas, and 69 ac of the habitat in the area of the proposed 
causeway (see Figure 4-1, Table 4-1, and Table 4-2). The 45-ac offsite area is currently owned 
by the USACE and is used as a CDF for disposal of dredge materials. In addition, the permitted 
disposal facility on the PSEG Site is used for disposal of materials dredged from the intake 
structures of HCGS and SGS. Preconstruction and construction activities that would impact 
terrestrial habitats include clearing and grubbing, site grading of upland areas, excavation, and 
filling of various site areas to achieve design grades (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 


November 2015 


4-25 


NUREG-2168 



Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


A total of 205 ac of the impacted area is considered temporary (Table 4-1). This includes 
159.9 ac on the site, 45.2 ac on adjacent offsite areas, and land disturbances during 
development of the proposed causeway (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Urban or Built-Up Land (Developed Land) 

About 91 ac or 26 percent of urban or built-up land on the PSEG Site would be used during 
construction and preconstruction activities. Temporary uses would account for almost 45 ac. 
Permanent use would account for about 47 ac or 13 percent of the urban or built-up land used 
on the site (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Offsite impacts to urban or built-up land would also occur in the adjacent offsite areas and along 
the proposed causeway route. Building activities in the adjacent offsite areas would temporarily 
make use of 2.4 ac of urban or built-up lands. The proposed causeway would permanently use 
4.2 ac and temporarily use 1.4 ac of developed lands (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

A total of 271 ac of the affected terrestrial habitat on the PSEG Site and vicinity would be 
permanently converted to developed land uses containing structures or pavement or other 
intensively maintained exterior grounds. There is about 939 ac of developed land in the vicinity 
and 630,938 ac in the region. The proposed action would add an additional 23 percent of 
developed land uses to the vicinity and make use of about 6 percent of the available developed 
lands (PSEG 2015-TN4280). These land areas on the site or in the vicinity have limited value 
for wildlife. 

Forestland 


Forestland cover type is mainly present in the southeast portion of the PSEG Site. Scattered 
old field communities consisting of one or more land-cover types also occur sporadically in the 
north and west portions of the PSEG Site. Construction and preconstruction activities would 
disturb about 89 ac of the available forestland on the site. Permanent use would result in the 
loss of 8.7 ac of forestland, and 80.3 ac would be temporarily disturbed. The permanent change 
of land use would result in the loss of about 8 percent of the available forestland on the site. 

The majority of the onsite forestland to be permanently lost is designated as deciduous 
brush/shrubland habitat (6 ac) and old field (<25 percent brush covered) (2.6 ac) under the New 
Jersey LULC system (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Less than 1 ac of forestland would be temporarily disturbed and 3.5 ac would permanently 
change as a result of building the proposed causeway. No forestland would be disturbed in 
adjacent offsite areas during building activities (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

There are about 2,653 ac of forestland available in the 6-mi vicinity of the PSEG Site, and 
construction and preconstruction activities would permanently remove less than 1 percent of 
that available habitat (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The impact to forestland from construction and 
preconstruction activities at the PSEG Site would not result in a noticeable impact to forestlands 
in the vicinity. 


NUREG-2168 


4-26 


November 2015 





Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Water 

The proposed construction and preconstruction activities would disturb about 44 ac of water 
habitats on the PSEG Site. About 40 ac of artificial lakes and nearly 3 ac of tidal rivers, inland 
bays, and other tidal waters would be permanently disturbed. The permanent loss represents 
about 94 percent of the available water habitats on the site. Less than 1 ac on the site would be 
temporarily disturbed (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Building activities on adjacent offsite areas and the proposed causeway would disturb about 
5 ac of available water habitat in these areas. Temporary disturbances include less than 1 ac 
in adjacent offsite areas and about 2 ac in the causeway. Permanent losses off the site would 
occur only in the proposed causeway area, and losses would be about 2 ac (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280). 

There are about 26,837 ac of water habitat in the vicinity. The permanent loss of this habitat 
on the site and in the vicinity represents less than 1 percent of the total available habitat 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). The loss of these areas would not have a noticeable effect on the 
available habitat in the vicinity. 

Wetlands 


Wetlands are mainly located in the extreme eastern and northern portions of the PSEG Site and 
represent one of the largest available habitats on the site. Building a new nuclear power plant 
would permanently disturb 108 ac of wetlands, including 0.1 ac of saline marsh, 58.3 ac of 
Phragmites-dom\na\ed coastal wetlands, 0.9 ac of herbaceous wetlands, 4.6 ac of deciduous 
scrub/shrub wetlands, and 44.1 ac of Phragmites-d ominated interior wetlands. There would be 
31.8 ac of temporary impacts on the site, including 5.1 ac of Phragmites- dominated coastal 
wetlands, 2.5 ac of herbaceous wetlands, and 24.2 ac of Phragmites- dominated interior 
wetlands (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Offsite impacts to wetlands from building activities in the offsite adjacent areas and the 
proposed causeway would total 72.8 ac. A permanent loss of 23 ac would occur in the wetlands 
associated with the proposed causeway and include losses of 6.1 ac of freshwater tidal marsh, 

11.2 ac of Phragmites-dom\na\.ed coastal wetlands, 1.2 ac of herbaceous wetlands, 0.1 ac of 
mixed scrub/shrub wetlands (coniferous dominated), and 4.4 ac of Phragmites- dominated 
interior wetlands. A total of 49.8 ac would be temporarily disturbed, including 6.6 ac of 
freshwater tidal marshes, 13.2 ac of Phragmites- dominated coastal wetlands, 29.2 ac of 
Phragmites-dom\na\.ed interior wetlands, and 0.8 ac of saline marsh (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Potential impacts to wetland plant communities may consist of actual direct damage to plants, 
compaction of wetland soils, and short-term reductions in productivity. The proposed causeway 
would be designed as an elevated structure to minimize potential impacts to plant communities. 
Permanent impacts to wetland plant communities along the causeway would be limited to 
placement of piers and direct shading. Shading could potentially result in some alteration of 
plant community makeup under the causeway and a reduction in primary productivity. The 
building method for the proposed causeway has not yet been determined, but construction work 
mats are expected to be used within a 50-ft-wide easement (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Reductions 


November 2015 


4-27 


NUREG-2168 





Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


in primary productivity due to causeway development should be minimal overall, considering the 
large area of adjacent coastal wetlands within the project vicinity. 

A total of 131 ac of wetlands would be lost as a result of building activities on the PSEG Site 
and vicinity. This represents less than 1 percent of the 25,534 ac of wetlands available in the 
vicinity. Most of these wetlands are dominated by near monocultures of the common reed 
(Phragmites australis ), a non-native aggressive invasive plant species that significantly impacts 
wetland diversity and habitat structure with resultant significant impacts to wildlife habitat quality 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). However, wetlands are an important habitat and the alteration of these 
wetlands would be noticeable. Further discussion of wetland habitats can be found in 
Section 4.3.1.2, which discusses important species and habitats. 

Barren Land 


About 19 ac of barren land would be disturbed on the site by construction and preconstruction 
activities. This includes permanent impacts to nearly all of the 15 ac of altered lands and 4 ac of 
disturbed wetlands (modified). Temporary impacts to barren land on the site include less than 
1 acofthe available disturbed wetlands (modified) (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Offsite barren land disturbances in the vicinity include about 13 ac of temporary impacts in the 
adjacent offsite areas. No barren land disturbances are expected for the building activities 
associated with the proposed causeway (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Disturbances to barren lands represent about 3 percent of the available 651 ac of barren land in 
the vicinity and less than 1 percent of the 54,142 ac of barren lands available in the region 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). Construction and preconstruction impacts on barren land would not 
noticeably affect barren land habitats in the vicinity. 

Managed Wetlands 

The applicant proposes to temporarily disturb 2.7 ac or 71 percent of the available managed 
wetlands on the PSEG Site. There would be no permanent impacts to managed wetlands, and 
there are no managed wetlands available in offsite areas or along the proposed causeway route 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). This disturbance would not noticeably affect managed wetlands in the 
vicinity. 

Agricultural Land 

Agricultural lands that would be potentially impacted by building activities include near offsite 
areas along the proposed causeway route. These agricultural land-cover types are located at 
the north end of the proposed causeway in Elsinboro Township. These plant communities 
consist of cultivated crops and adventitious weedy species. The proposed causeway would 
permanently disturb 12.4 ac and temporarily disturb 0.2 ac of agricultural land in the vicinity. 

No permanent or temporary impacts to agricultural lands would result from onsite building 
activities at the PSEG Site. The affected agricultural lands represent less than 1 percent of 
agricultural lands available in the vicinity (PSEG 2015-TN4280). These impacts would not 
noticeably affect the available agricultural habitats in the vicinity. 


NUREG-2168 


4-28 


November 2015 





Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Impacts to Wildlife 
Habitat Loss Impacts 

Loss of habitat as a result of building activities on the PSEG Site would impact terrestrial wildlife 
species currently inhabiting the site. Some direct loss of less mobile species and displacement 
of more mobile species to adjacent areas would be expected. Less mobile species may include 
small rodents, amphibians, and turtles. It is expected that larger species (e.g., raccoons, 
skunks, groundhogs, foxes, coyotes, and deer) and other more mobile species (e.g., birds) 
would be capable of easily moving off the site. However, displacement of species into 
surrounding areas would likely cause increased competition for resources (i.e., food, cover, and 
nesting sites) in those areas, resulting in some negative overall impacts to species populations 
where habitat carrying capacity is exceeded. Due to the extensive permanent and temporary 
impacts to onsite wetland resources, wildlife species that are dependent on this habitat for 
foraging, cover, and reproduction have the potential to be adversely affected. However, ample 
available habitat of similar structure and function exists in the vicinity and region. 

The proposed causeway would be built on piers, thereby preserving wildlife travel corridors. By 
allowing wildlife travel below the causeway, this elevated design would minimize the possibility 
for wildlife-vehicle collisions and wildlife mortality compared with conventional roadways built on 
embankments. Wildlife species potentially impacted by building activities are generally common 
in the region, as described in Section 2.4.1. The surrounding area includes large tracts of land 
that would be suitable for most displaced species, with competition from existing resident 
species in those areas being the greatest challenge for displaced species (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280). 

Potential Noise and Fugitive Dust Impacts 

Preconstruction and construction activities on the PSEG Site and in the vicinity that produce 
noise and fugitive dust would likely displace wildlife into habitat surrounding the work areas. 

The peak noise level associated with preconstruction and construction activities would be 
102 dBA 50 ft away from work areas, attenuated to 58 dBA 1,500 ft away (Table 3-3). 

Behavioral impacts attributed to noise could decrease chances for wildlife survival and 
successful reproduction. Impacts to wildlife can range from nonexistent to serious depending 
on the species and the situation (Larkin 1996-TN772). In past studies of frequent noise events 
exceeding 80 dBA, waterfowl activities demonstrated only minimal responses to individual 
events and no noticeable disruptions of typical behavior patterns, indicating that avian species 
quickly accommodate to the noise events (Fleming et al. 2001-TN2419). It is anticipated that 
general noise levels from preconstruction and construction would dissipate to ambient levels 
within a short distance, which is well below that which would normally cause a response in 
wildlife (NRC 2013-TN2654). 

PSEG proposes to suppress fugitive dust on the PSEG Site and offsite preconstruction and 
construction areas by using water from local stormwater retention ponds. The impact of fugitive 
dust to wildlife species would be negligible. 


November 2015 


4-29 


NUREG-2168 




Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Potential for Collisions with Human-Made Structures 


Avian and bat collisions with human-made structures can be attributed to numerous factors 
related to species characteristics such as flight behavior, age, habitat use, and seasonal and 
diurnal habitats and environmental characteristics such as weather, topography, land use, and 
orientation of the structures. This is a particular concern in the area of the PSEG Site because 
it is in the Atlantic Flyway, a major bird migration route. Additionally, bat hibernacula (shelters 
occupied by dormant bats) are known to occur in Salem County, New Jersey. Bird and bat 
collisions with construction equipment, such as cranes or new structures, have the potential 
to occur at the PSEG Site. Studies of avian and bat collisions with elevated construction 
equipment are lacking. However, surveys conducted in the vicinity of other human-made 
structures such as NDCTs indicate that avian mortalities as a result of collisions could occur. 

The findings of NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of 
Nuclear Plants (NRC 2013-TN2654), demonstrated that mortalities as a result of avian collisions 
with existing structures at nuclear power plants are minor and typically occur with structures 
more than 300-ft tall. In addition, a study of bat collisions with wind turbine towers indicated that 
only a small fraction of bats collide with towers and the number was not sufficient to alter 
populations (Erickson et al. 2002-TN771). The tallest structure on the PSEG Site is the NDCT 
associated with HCGS (512 ft) (PSEG 2015-TN4280). During a year-long study from 1985 to 
1986, PSEG counted a total of 30 avian mortalities with no Federal- or State-listed endangered 
or threatened species noted (PSEG 1987-TN2893). Therefore, the impacts of such collisions 
during preconstruction and construction at the PSEG Site are expected to be negligible. 

Potential Impacts of Artificial Light 

Nighttime artificial lighting has the potential to impact wildlife during preconstruction and 
construction activities. Frogs, for example, have been found to inhibit their mating calls when 
exposed to excessive light at night. The feeding behavior of some bat species may also be 
affected by artificial lighting (PSEG 2015-TN4280). In addition, artificial lighting could create or 
magnify the incidence of avian collisions if tall cranes are illuminated for nighttime work. 
According to Evans Ogden (1996-TN3284), the largest proportion of migrating birds affected by 
human-built structures is composed of songbirds. This is apparently because they typically 
migrate at night, exhibit low flight altitudes, and have a tendency to be trapped and disoriented 
by artificial light. This makes them vulnerable to collisions with obstructions. Wildlife species on 
the PSEG Site and in the 6-mi vicinity are acclimated to the artificial lighting associated with the 
operating nuclear power plants and support structures. As previously mentioned, avian 
collisions at the PSEG Site are negligible and no bat species mortalities have been noted. 
Therefore, artificial light impacts to wildlife species are expected to be minimal. 

Summary of Impacts to Terrestrial Habitats and Wildlife 

The construction and preconstruction impacts on terrestrial habitats and wildlife of building a 
new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site are projected to be minimal. This does not include 
impacts to important species and important wetlands, wildlife sanctuaries, refuges, and 
preserves. Important species and important wetlands, wildlife sanctuaries, refuges, and 
preserves are discussed further in Section 4.3.1.2. Habitat available for terrestrial wildlife that 
currently exists at the PSEG Site where construction and preconstruction activities would occur 


NUREG-2168 


4-30 


November 2015 





Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


is more common elsewhere in the vicinity. Avian collisions with building equipment and 
temporary facilities would be minimal. Noise impacts would be localized and attenuate with 
distance. Artificial lighting and fugitive dust would not be expected to disrupt the behaviors of 
terrestrial wildlife beyond the building area. Therefore, the review team concludes that 
preconstruction and construction impacts to terrestrial habitats and wildlife would be negligible. 

4.3.1.2 Important Terrestrial and Wetland Species and Habitats 

Important Species - PS EG Site and Vicinity 

This section describes the potential impacts on important species from construction and 
preconstruction activities associated with building at the PSEG Site. Important species 
considered in this section include Federally proposed, threatened, or endangered terrestrial 
species; State-listed species; and other ecologically important species. As part of the NRC’s 
responsibilities under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq. - 
TN1010), the NRC will prepare a biological assessment (BA) before issuance of the final EIS 
that evaluates potential impacts of preconstruction and construction activities on Federally listed 
(or proposed), threatened, or endangered aquatic and terrestrial species (Appendix F). 

Section 2.4.1 describes the important terrestrial species and habitats located within the PSEG 
Site and vicinity. Impacts to terrestrial species are discussed in greater detail below. 

Terrestrial Species of Recreational or Commercial Value 

Northern river otters ( Lontra canadensis) were observed in the Delaware River at the PSEG Site 
during the 2009 to 2010 field survey. They are an economically important furbearer species 
because of their thick and very durable fur. The species is generally most abundant in food-rich 
coastal areas such as the lower portions of streams, rivers, and estuaries (Chapman and 
Feldhamer 1982-TN3274). Although some temporary displacement of river otters may occur 
during preconstruction or construction at the PSEG Site, suitable habitat would remain abundant 
in the Delaware River, Alloway Creek, Hope Creek, and various unnamed tidal creeks in the 
vicinity. 

Muskrats ( Ondatra zibethicus ) generally prefer coastal marshes and marshy areas around 
lakes, sloughs, streams, and rivers. However, they are very adaptable and can also be found in 
a wide range of habitats, including strip-mined ponds, ditches, canals, and pits. They are 
considered to be the most valuable fur animal in North America (Chapman and 
Feldhamer 1982-TN3274). Muskrats are abundant in the coastal and freshwater wetlands 
surrounding the PSEG Site and were observed during the 2009 to 2010 field survey. Building at 
the PSEG Site would permanently impact a little less than 127 ac of potential muskrat habitat on 
the site and a little more than 25 ac off the site. This would result in the displacement of some 
animals, which could result in increased competition for resources in surrounding areas. 
Although a new nuclear power plant and the associated causeway would result in loss of some 
habitat for this species, more than 25,000 ac of wetlands would remain in surrounding areas 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

White-tailed deer ( Odocoiieus virginianus) are an important game species and have significant 
economic value, offering major recreational hunting opportunities. White-tailed deer are found 


November 2015 


4-31 


NUREG-2168 



Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


throughout New Jersey and are absent only from the most urbanized areas. Deer hunters in 
New Jersey spend more than $100 million a year, benefiting a wide variety of businesses. 

White-tailed deer are abundant in the upland agricultural areas in the vicinity of the PSEG Site 
and were commonly observed during the 2009 to 2010 ecological field studies. On the site, 
white-tailed deer were occasionally observed in the upland old field habitat east of HCGS and 
SGS (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Building at the PSEG Site would permanently impact almost 9 ac 
and temporarily impact almost 100 ac of potential white-tailed deer habitat on the site in 
undeveloped upland ROWs and forest/old field land-cover types. Impacts to potential 
white-tailed deer habitat within the proposed causeway (agriculture, forest/old field, upland 
ROWs undeveloped, agricultural wetlands, and former agricultural wetlands) include almost 
18 ac of permanent impacts and 0.3 ac of temporary impacts. Portions of the impacted area are 
located near the existing HCGS and SGS facilities, where buildings, pavement, and the noise of 
operations result in marginal or unsuitable habitat conditions (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Preconstruction and construction activities may also temporarily increase the potential for 
white-tailed deer mortality due to vehicle collisions associated with displacement and movement 
of deer toward upland habitat to the east of the site. More than 16,000 ac of agricultural habitat 
and more than 2,500 ac of forest/old field habitat would remain in the vicinity of the site 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). Displacement of animals could result in increased competition for 
resources in surrounding areas. 

The northern pintail ( Anas acuta), green-winged teal ( Anas crecca ), mallard ( Anas 
platyrhynchos), American black duck ( Anas rubripes), ring-necked duck ( Anas collaris), greater 
scaup ( Aythya marila), bufflehead ( Bucephala alboela), hooded merganser ( Lophodytes 
cucullatus), common merganser ( Mergus merganser), and red-breasted merganser ( Mergus 
serrator) ducks; Canada goose ( Branta canadensis)', and snow goose ( Chen caerulescens) 
are all waterfowl that have been identified as important species at or near the PSEG Site 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). These 12 species of waterfowl, plus the American coot ( Fulica 
americana), are considered important species based on their recreational value as game 
species that are hunted in the vicinity of the PSEG Site. Although protected by the Migratory 
Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 703 et seq. -TN3331), these species are commonly harvested during 
yearly hunting seasons. 

The PSEG Site and vicinity contains relatively abundant waterfowl habitat. However, the 
invasion of the exotic Phragmites australis has transformed habitat that was a historically 
diverse marsh ecosystem into a habitat of limited structure and function, with altered nutrient 
cycles and hydrological regimes. Of specific concern are negative impacts to habitat quality and 
diversity for waterfowl. Dense, monotypic stands of Phragmites provide only marginal habitat 
for resident, migratory, and wintering species of waterfowl. Although waterfowl may 
occasionally nest in this habitat, most are migratory, using the area as a stopping point or 
wintering area along the Atlantic Flyway. These birds primarily use open water areas present 
on the PSEG Site, including the CDF/disposal basins and tidal creeks. Preconstruction- and 
construction-related activities would impact 90 ac of unmapped coastal-CDF/disposal basin 
wetlands. These basins are mostly surrounded by nearly impenetrable monotypic stands of 
Phragmites and are generally shallow, supporting only minimal aquatic vegetation and benthic 
macroinvertebrate communities. Limited habitat structure and plant species diversity in these 


NUREG-2168 


4-32 


November 2015 



Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


areas provide very little foraging opportunity for waterfowl, and they are primarily used as 
resting areas. Building activities may result in displacement of waterfowl; however, tidal creeks 
and more than 25,000 ac of wetland habitat would remain abundant in the vicinity of the PSEG 
Site (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

The wild turkey ( Meleagris gallopavo) is an important game bird species that has been recorded 
on and in the vicinity of the PSEG Site. Wild turkeys were observed during the 2009 to 2010 
field survey. A total of 8.7 ac of suitable turkey habitat (i.e., deciduous brush/shrubland, old 
field, and upland ROWs undeveloped) would be permanently converted to developed land- 
cover types on the PSEG Site as a result of preconstruction and construction activities. A total 
of 99.9 ac of this habitat would be temporarily eliminated. Also, a total of 16.8 ac of turkey 
habitat (i.e., cropland, pastureland, or other agriculture; forest/old field; and upland ROWs 
undeveloped) would be permanently impacted by building the proposed causeway. Wild 
turkeys are mobile birds capable of dispersing to adjacent areas with suitable habitat. More 
than 16,000 ac of agricultural land and more than 2,500 ac of forest/old field would remain 
available to turkeys in the vicinity of the PSEG Site after building activities were completed 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). Increased competition for limited resources and increased competition 
for females by males would probably be the two largest impacts. However, a fairly limited 
amount of habitat would be permanently impacted in comparison to vast areas of habitat in the 
immediate vicinity. 

Federally or State-Listed Terrestrial Species 

Reptiles and Amphibians . The bog turtle ( Glyptemys muhlenbergii) is listed as threatened 
Federally and State-listed as endangered by both New Jersey and Delaware. This species was 
recorded historically for Artificial Island and the vicinity during a study conducted between 1972 
and 1978. There were no records for this species in the latest surveys conducted by PSEG in 
2009 to 2010 (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Although the most recent distribution for bog turtles 
includes Salem County, the PSEG Site does not currently contain suitable habitat for this 
species. Bog turtles require large contiguous areas of land for dispersal, and intense land uses 
such as those found on the PSEG Site are not favorable to this species. Furthermore, 
monocultures of invasive species such as Phragmites are not conducive to bog turtle presence. 
Therefore, building a new nuclear power plant on the PSEG Site would not be expected to 
impact this species. 

The eastern tiger salamander ( Ambystoma tigrinum tigrinum) is listed as endangered by New 
Jersey. This species was recorded historically during the Artificial Island study from 1972 to 
1978. There were no records for this species in the latest surveys conducted by PSEG from 
2009 to 2010 (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Although tiger salamanders will use human-made ponds, 
it is not believed that the PSEG Site contains sufficient habitat to fulfill all life requirements to 
sustain this species. Life requirements include both upland and wetland habitat that contain 
ponds suitable for breeding, forested areas, and soil types that allow burrowing (loamy sand and 
sandy loams are preferred). Vegetation around the ponds used by this species normally 
includes sedges and sphagnum moss, and sufficient aquatic vegetation is needed in the pond 
itself for cover. The altered habitat present on the PSEG Site would not appear to be conducive 
to supporting tiger salamander populations. In addition, surveys of this species conducted in 
1995 revealed that the tiger salamander occurred at only a limited number of sites in Atlantic 


November 2015 


4-33 


NUREG-2168 





Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


and Cumberland Counties (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Therefore, building a new nuclear power 
plant would not be expected to impact this species. 

Birds . The rufa red knot ( Calidris canutus rufa) is Federally listed as threatened, and State- 
listed as endangered for both New Jersey and Delaware. This species has not been previously 
recorded on the PSEG Site or vicinity and was not noted in field surveys conducted from 2009 
to 2010 (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The nearest known occurrence of the rufa red knot is in 
adjacent Cumberland County, New Jersey, and Kent County, Delaware (79 FR 73705-TN4267). 
Additionally, the PSEG Site does not contain suitable habitat or forage to support this species. 
Therefore, building a new nuclear power plant on the PSEG Site would not be expected to 
impact the rufa red knot. 

The eight birds of prey identified as important species include the Cooper’s hawk ( Accipiter 
cooperii), northern goshawk (Accipitergentilis), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), northern 
harrier ( Circus cyaneus), bald eagle ( Haliaeetus leucocephalus), osprey ( Pandion haliaetus), 
American kestrel ( Falco sparverius) and peregrine falcon ( Falco peregrinus). The Cooper’s 
hawk is listed as a species of special concern in New Jersey. Cooper’s hawks prefer large 
tracts of forested land, where they nest in large mature trees. One was observed in a small tree 
on the site in the fall of 2009. Preferred habitat for this species is not present on the site, and 
Cooper’s hawks are more likely residents of forested habitat in the vicinity of the PSEG Site. 

Use of habitat at the PSEG Site by this species is most likely of a transient nature during 
foraging. Year-round, migrating and wintering birds would all be expected to use the site in this 
manner. Preconstruction- and construction-related impacts to Cooper’s hawks are expected to 
be minimal. 

Northern goshawks, listed as endangered for the breeding population and as a species of 
special concern for the nonbreeding population in New Jersey, have been reported in the 
project vicinity during recent (2008 to 2009) Audubon Society Annual Christmas Bird Counts for 
Salem County (Audubon 2013-TN2414). This species breeds in mature forests, and the PSEG 
Site contains no potential breeding habitat. However, goshawks frequent a wider variety of 
habitats outside the breeding season during foraging. These habitats include scrubby areas 
and tree lines along marshes or open fields. Potential foraging habitat in the form of forest/old 
fields and wetlands would be impacted by building at the PSEG Site. However, more than 
27,000 ac of such habitat are present in the vicinity of the site (Audubon 2013-TN2414). 
Therefore, impacts to potential foraging habitat for this species are expected to be minimal. 

Although the red-shouldered hawk, a New Jersey-listed endangered species, has been 
identified in recent years near the PSEG Site during the Audubon Society Annual Christmas 
Bird Counts (Audubon 2013-TN2414), as discussed in Section 2.4.1, no red-shouldered hawks 
were observed on the site during the 2009 to 2010 field survey (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Preferred habitat, deciduous and mixed forest communities adjacent to water, is absent on the 
site but available in the vicinity. Only transient use of the site would be expected for this 
species. Therefore, preconstruction- and construction-related impacts to red-shouldered hawks 
are expected to be minimal. 

The northern harrier, a State-listed endangered species in New Jersey and Delaware, has been 
commonly observed foraging in the coastal wetlands on and in proximity to the site. Nests were 


NUREG-2168 


4-34 


November 2015 




Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


not observed on the site during the 2009 to 2010 field survey; however, nesting habitat in the 
coastal marsh is present on the site and in the vicinity. Onsite habitat potentially used by the 
northern harrier that could be impacted by preconstruction and construction activities includes 
26.1 ac of Phrag mites -dominated old field, 63.4 ac of Phragmites-d o m i n a ted coastal wetlands, 
68.3 ac of Phragmites-dominaied interior wetlands, 56.9 ac of old field, and 0.1 ac of saline 
marsh. Northern harrier habitat within the proposed causeway that could be permanently 
impacted includes 11.3 ac of agricultural lands, 3.4 ac of old field habitats, and 25.1 ac of 
wetlands. The vast majority of impacts would be incurred in areas consisting of near 
monocultures of the invasive reed Phragmites australis , which generally offers habitat of limited 
structure and function because it forms dense, impenetrable stands (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 
However, there are records of harriers nesting in Phragmites- dominated habitats (NJDEP 2014- 
TN3255). The carrying capacity of the areas for nesting harriers could be impacted, thereby 
decreasing the number of pairs that could nest in the area. However, abundant higher quality 
foraging and nesting habitat for this species would remain in the vicinity of the PSEG Site. 
Because impacts incurred would be to habitat of limited structure and function and ample 
high-quality northern harrier habitat would remain, impacts to the northern harrier are expected 
to be minimal. 

Due to its successful recovery, the bald eagle is no longer a Federally listed species by the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service. The bald eagle was identified as important because of its status as a 
Federally protected species (16 USC 703 et seq. -TN3331; Bald and Golden Eagle Protection 
Act, 16 USC 668 et seq. -TN1447) and as a State-listed endangered species for both New 
Jersey and Delaware. Although bald eagles were occasionally observed during the 2009 to 
2010 onsite field survey, there are no known bald eagle nests or suitable roosting habitat at the 
PSEG Site. This is primarily due to the absence of large trees or suitable structures that could 
support nesting activities (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Therefore, building a new nuclear power plant 
and causeway are not anticipated to impact bald eagle nesting, foraging, or roosting habitat, so 
impacts to the bald eagle are expected to be minimal. 

Osprey, a New Jersey State-listed threatened species, were occasionally observed both on and 
in the vicinity of the PSEG Site during the 2009 to 2010 field survey. Active osprey nests were 
observed on transmission towers along the current access road, on the transmission towers that 
run from the plant north toward Money Island Road, and on human-made nesting platforms 
constructed by PSEG along Alloway Creek. Natural osprey nesting sites such as large trees 
are not present on the site (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Impacts to osprey, if any, would be 
considered minor because nesting platforms are not expected to be impacted by 
preconstruction or construction. Furthermore, food and foraging habitat (i.e., in the Delaware 
River) would remain abundant during and after development of a new nuclear power plant. 
Consequently, impacts on osprey are expected to be minimal. 

American kestrels, State-listed as threatened in New Jersey, have been reported in the PSEG 
Site vicinity by the USGS North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) and during recent 
Audubon Society Annual Christmas Bird Counts for Salem County (PSEG 2015-TN4280; 
Audubon 2013-TN2414). This species was also recorded during past work conducted in the 
Alloway Creek Watershed (PSEG 2004-TN2897). This is a species that prefers open country. 
Building on the PSEG Site would permanently disturb less than 3 ac and temporarily disturb a 
little more than 54 ac of old field habitat that could serve as potential habitat. In addition, 


November 2015 


4-35 


NUREG-2168 


Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


permanent loss of agricultural lands due to building the causeway would be 11.3 ac. However, 
there are more than 2,500 ac of forest/old field habitat and more than 16,000 ac of cropland- 
pastureland and other agriculture habitat in the vicinity of the site. In addition, this would be 
expected to be higher quality habitat and more conducive habitat for kestrels than what currently 
exists on the PSEG Site. Consequently, impacts of preconstruction and construction on 
kestrels are expected to be minimal. 

Peregrine falcons, State-listed as endangered for the breeding population and a species of 
special concern for the nonbreeding population in New Jersey, have been reported in the PSEG 
Site vicinity during recent Audubon Society Annual Christmas Bird Counts for Salem County 
(Audubon 2013-TN2414). There are no records for nesting peregrine falcons in Salem County. 
Any expected use of the PSEG Site by peregrines would be for foraging, which would most 
likely occur in the winter. This species favors open areas for hunting, frequently hunting over 
marshes, beaches, and open water. Although there would be some loss of wetlands as a result 
of building a new nuclear power plant (108 ac permanently, 31.8 ac temporarily) and the 
causeway (23 ac permanently, 19.6 ac temporarily), more than 25,000 ac of wetlands remain in 
the vicinity of the site. Therefore, impacts to any potential foraging habitat for this species are 
expected to be minimal. 

A number of wading birds have been documented on and/or adjacent to the PSEG Site during 
past surveys (Table 2-8). Several of these species have listed status in New Jersey and/or 
Delaware. These species include several State-designated species of concern, including the 
great blue heron ( Ardea herodias), little blue heron ( Egretta caerulea), snowy egret ( Egretta 
thula), and glossy ibis ( Plegadis falcinellus). State-listed endangered and threatened species 
include both black-crowned night-heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) and cattle egret ( Bubulcus ibis). 
An additional State-listed species, the pied-billed grebe {Podilymbus podiceps), has been 
observed in low numbers during Audubon Society Annual Christmas Bird Counts in Salem 
County. Common terns ( Sterna hirundo), a State-designated species of concern, have also 
been recorded at the site and in the vicinity. Spotted sandpipers ( Actitis macularius), a New 
Jersey State-designated species of concern, may also frequent such areas. There are no 
known heron/egret rookeries or tern colonies on the PSEG Site. However, the PSEG Site does 
contain potential foraging habitat that would be permanently impacted by building a new nuclear 
power plant. This includes 40 ac of artificial lakes (mainly in the northeastern portion of the site) 
and 3 ac of tidal rivers, inland bays, and other tidal waters (Table 4-1). However, more than 
26,000 ac of tidal rivers, inland bays, and other tidal waters would remain in the vicinity of the 
site (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Therefore, impacts on wading birds and terns are expected to be 
minimal. 

A number of New Jersey and/or Delaware State-listed bird species that typically frequent old 
fields and other open habitats have been recorded on or in the vicinity of the PSEG Site. These 
include State-designated species of concern including brown thrasher ( Toxostoma rufum), 
eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna ), and yellow-breasted chat ( Icteria virens ). Additionally, 
State-listed endangered and threatened species such as horned lark ( Eremophiia alpestris), 
bobolink ( Dolichonyx oryzivorus), grasshopper sparrow ( Ammodramus savannarum) and 
savannah sparrow ( Passerculus sandwichensis) are known to occur in these habitats. Building 
on the PSEG Site would permanently disturb less than 3 ac and temporarily disturb a little more 
than 54 ac of old field habitat (Table 4-1). However, there are more than 2,500 ac of forest/old 


NUREG-2168 


4-36 


November 2015 




Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


field habitat and more than 16,000 ac of cropland, pastureland, and other agriculture habitat in 
the vicinity of the site (PSEG 2015-TN4280). In addition, this would be expected to be higher 
quality habitat than what currently exists at the PSEG Site. Therefore, impacts to these species 
are expected to be minimal. 

The red-headed woodpecker ( Melanerpes erythrocephalus) breeding and nonbreeding 
populations are listed by New Jersey as threatened. No red-headed woodpeckers were 
observed during the 2009 to 2010 field survey, nor have they been reported in USGS BBS or 
the Audubon Society Annual Christmas Bird Count. In addition, the site and vicinity lack 
suitable habitat for this species (i.e., open woods, deciduous forests, forest edges, river 
bottoms, orchards, grasslands with scattered trees and clearings, dead or dying trees 
[Section 2.4.1]). Therefore, it is not expected that there would be any preconstruction- or 
construction-related impacts to this species. 

The northern parula ( Parula americana) and hooded warbler (Wilsonia citrina), New Jersey 
State-designated species of concern, are two warbler species recorded by the USGS BBS in 
the vicinity of the site. The site does not contain viable nesting habitat for either species. 
However, building on the site could impact potential foraging habitat for these species. 

Bats . Typical hibernacula and maternity roosting habitat suitable for the northern long-eared bat 
(Myotis septentrionalis) does not exist on the PSEG Site, and the bat has not been recorded on 
the site. The nearest known hibernacula and maternity roost are in northern and central Salem 
County, New Jersey. The northern long-eared bat is not expected to be affected by 
preconstruction and construction activities on the PSEG Site. 

Plants . Sensitive joint-vetch ( Aeschynomene virginica) is a Federally threatened plant species 
that is known to occur in intertidal zones that are fresh or slightly salty in areas with extensive 
marshes subject to two cycles of flooding a day. It prefers sediments that are bare or contain 
sparse vegetation along river banks within 6 ft of the low water mark. It can also occur in tidal 
marsh interiors. It has historically occurred within the vicinity of the PSEG Site but has not 
recently been recorded on the site. Suitable habitat is not expected to occur on the PSEG Site. 

Swamp pink ( Helonias bullata) and small whorled pogonia ( Isotria medeoloides) are Federally 
listed as threatened. Swamp pink is an obligate wetland species that occurs in palustrine 
forested wetlands with canopy closures of 20 to 100 percent. Although it is believed to occur in 
the vicinity of the PSEG Site, suitable habitat does not exist. Small whorled pogonia grows in 
upland, mid-successional, wooded habitats, usually with mixed deciduous or mixed 
deciduous/coniferous forest with canopy trees ranging from 40 to 75 years old. Like the swamp 
pink, suitable habitat on the PSEG Site is not available. 

Other Important Terrestrial Species . Green tree frogs (Hyla cinerea) were observed on the site 
within small isolated impounded areas within the PSEG desilt basin during the 2009 to 2010 
survey (PSEG 2015-TN4280). A survey conducted in June and July 2012 also detected this 
species in the same general onsite location and numerous offsite locations in the vicinity 
(AMEC 2012-TN3187). This was a new species record for New Jersey, although its range does 
extend throughout the Delmarva Peninsula to the south and west. The range of this species 
appears to be expanding, and it is not listed on the New Jersey special concern or threatened 


November 2015 


4-37 


NUREG-2168 






Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


and endangered species lists. Based on the overlay of the PSEG Site Utilization Plan shown in 
Figure 4-1, habitats in which green tree frogs were observed would be altered or eliminated as 
part of preconstruction and construction activities. However, based on the prevalence of 
records for the green tree frog at numerous offsite locations during the 2012 survey 
(AMEC 2012-TN3187), there is viable habitat for this species in a number of areas in the vicinity 
of the PSEG Site. 

Summary of Impacts on Important Terrestrial Species at the PSEG Site 

The construction and preconstruction impacts on important species of building a new nuclear 
power plant at the PSEG Site are projected to be minimal with no additional mitigation needed. 
Habitat available for important species that currently exist at the PSEG Site where construction 
and preconstruction activities would occur is more common elsewhere in the vicinity. Avian 
collisions with building equipment and temporary facilities would be minimal. Noise impacts 
would be localized and attenuate with distance. Artificial lighting and fugitive dust would not be 
expected to disrupt important species behaviors beyond the building area. Therefore, the 
review team concludes that preconstruction and construction impacts to important species 
would be negligible. 

Important Habitats 

Wetlands 


Jurisdictional wetlands (i.e., those that are regulated by the USACE under Section 10 of the 
Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act, and Section 404 of the CWA [33 USC 1251 et seq. - 
TN662]) may be defined and identified differently than wetlands identified as part of the NJDEP 
LULC classification system and are subject to the USACE permitting requirements. Therefore, 
jurisdictional wetlands are evaluated separately from the LULC analysis. Because the USACE 
uses the Cowardin System for land-use classification of wetlands and waters, the overall 
acreages of impacts described above would be similar, but may not be identical, to the acreage 
calculations for the USACE values. It is also important to note that the habitat condition and 
extent of wetlands may vary with time, especially in modified or disturbed locations (e.g., CDFs) 
where dredge materials are being deposited. The USACE has prepared and approved 
jurisdictional determination for the project site (USACE 2014-TN3282). The following 
descriptions of impacts are based on the jurisdictional wetlands determination. 

There would be unavoidable impacts to waters of the United States and State waters as a result 
of preconstruction and construction activities associated with a new nuclear power plant and 
related facilities. This would include both direct and indirect impacts to wetland resources at the 
PSEG Site and along the proposed causeway. Direct impacts would be related to direct 
alteration of the habitat as the result of fill placement, shading, and other preconstruction and 
construction activities. There would also be the potential for indirect impacts to areas outside 
the wetlands. These indirect impacts might include pollutant loading (e.g., oil and grease) from 
cars traveling along the proposed causeway and erosion/sedimentation caused by additional 
runoff due to increases in impervious surfaces (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 


NUREG-2168 


4-38 


November 2015 





Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Specific site use areas where direct impacts to wetlands might occur include, but are not limited 
to, the power block, cooling tower, switchyard, batch plant, heavy haul road, parking, intake 
structure, and temporary laydown areas, as illustrated in Figure 4-1. Direct impacts are 
generally associated with the placement of fill material in support of construction activities. As 
discussed in Section 4.3.1, the limits of the site use areas represent a bounded configuration of 
the lands potentially affected by building activities (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Onsite building activities would impact a total of 63.4 ac of coastal wetlands and 122.5 ac of 
unmapped coastal wetlands. Of the 122.5 ac of unmapped coastal wetlands potentially 
impacted, 90 ac are situated in active land disposal areas (i.e., the USACE CDF and PSEG 
desilt basin). A total of 151.2 ac of wetlands are in proposed onsite permanent use areas, and 
36.5 ac are in onsite and adjacent offsite temporary use areas (the USACE CDF). The impacts 
to all of these use areas are considered to be permanent, and mitigation for losses would occur 
in other areas of the site or in offsite areas (Section 4.3.1.4) (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

An additional 39.6 ac of coastal wetlands and 1.4 ac of unmapped coastal/freshwater wetlands 
off the site would be impacted by building the proposed causeway. Offsite impacts associated 
with the causeway would be minimized through the use of an elevated road and bridge design 
that would reduce the width and magnitude of impact when compared to building on fill. Within 
a 50-ft-wide corridor, wetland impacts resulting from fill would be limited to areas directly 
affected by pier placement. Some plant community alteration is expected due to shading 
effects, as described in Section 4.3.1. Because of this, the 50-ft-wide corridor was assumed to 
be permanently impacted. It was also assumed that construction methods would include the 
use of low-ground-pressure equipment and work mats to support heavy equipment (e.g., pile 
drivers). Work mats would be used within a 50-ft-wide easement and removed once the 
causeway is completed (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Temporary impacts within these areas would 
therefore be minimized, with limited compaction and disturbance to wetland soils and 
substrates. Therefore, disturbance is anticipated to be temporary in these areas, and recovery 
following the building phase is expected to be rapid. 

Indirect impacts would occur within adjacent wetlands and surface waters, including localized 
siltation and sedimentation. Preconstruction- and construction-related secondary impacts to site 
wetlands would be minimized and controlled with the use of BMPs. This would include the use 
of silt fences, temporary and permanent vegetative stabilization, mulching, erosion-control 
blankets, stormwater detention basins, and other soil erosion and sediment control practices, as 
appropriate. These measures would reduce the risk of sediment runoff into wetlands adjoining 
the site. Grading plans would also be used to control site runoff from developed lands and 
prevent discharge of stormwater into adjacent wetlands (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

In total, 104.8 ac of coastal, 122.5 ac of unmapped coastal, and 1.4 ac of freshwater wetlands 
are expected to be impacted by building a new nuclear power plant and the proposed 
causeway. Because of the abundance of wetland land-cover types within the vicinity 
(25,534 ac) and the quality of the impacted resource (i.e., the dominance of Phragmites and the 
large amount of onsite acreage represented in CDFs), the potential impacts to this cover type 
are expected to be noticeable and may warrant mitigation (additional discussion in 
Section 4.3.1.4 regarding mitigation) (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 


November 2015 


4-39 


NUREG-2168 



Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Mad Horse Creek WMA and Abbotts Meadow WMA . Portions of the proposed causeway would 
traverse sections of the Mad Horse Creek WMA and Abbotts Meadow WMA. About 1 ac of 
these WMAs would be impacted. Mad Horse Creek WMA consists of 9,500 acres of wildlife 
habitat and recreational land, and Abbotts Meadow WMA contains 1,000 acres of wildlife habitat 
and recreational land. The impact represents less than 1 percent of the combined available 
habitat at these WMAs. 

Summary of Impacts to Important Habitats 

Preconstruction- and construction-related impacts to important habitats as a result of building a 
new nuclear power plant and associated support structures would be noticeable. The impacts 
to about 229 ac of wetlands would be noticeable, but not destabilizing. These impacts may 
warrant mitigation, as prescribed by the USACE. Although the loss of about 1 ac of WMA would 
not be noticeable, it would have a localized effect on species dependent on the resources. 

4.3.1.3 Terrestrial Monitoring 

PSEG has not proposed terrestrial monitoring during construction or preconstruction activities 
associated with a new nuclear power plant. However, PSEG conducts ecological monitoring as 
part of its EEP near the site in conjunction with its NJPDES permit for SGS. These ecological 
studies include vegetation cover and geomorphology monitoring for four restoration sites and 
two reference sites. Additionally, the USACE could require PSEG to conduct short- and long¬ 
term monitoring of wetland mitigation activities in association with a new nuclear power plant 
and support structures as part of compliance with the USACE-issued permits. 

4.3.1.4 Potential Mitigation Measures for Terrestrial Impacts 

Mitigation of unavoidable impacts to terrestrial and wetland resources may include restoration of 
habitats disturbed by preconstruction and construction activities, creation of new habitat in 
previously disturbed areas, and enhancement of other natural habitat. PSEG has indicated that 
any mitigation plans would be developed in consultation with the applicable Federal, State, and 
local agencies. Additionally, PSEG-proposed mitigation would be done both on the site and off 
the site in the immediate vicinity to the extent practicable (PSEG 2015-TN4280). PSEG’s 
proposed mitigation measures are described in the following sections for both upland areas and 
wetlands. 

Upland Terrestrial Habitats 

The mitigation of temporary impacts to terrestrial resources and associated wildlife populations 
could include restoration of these areas with native cover types. Many of the areas identified for 
temporary use are previously disturbed habitats that have become reestablished as natural 
areas. Mitigation of impacts in these areas to stabilize soils and reestablish habitat may include 
grading and planting with native plant species. The adjacent lands to be temporarily leased 
from the USACE could be restored to a use and cover type agreed upon with the USACE 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). These measures, in combination, could restore quality habitat for 
resident wildlife populations. 


NUREG-2168 


4-40 


November 2015 





Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Wetlands 

Wetlands are considered to be an important terrestrial resource on the PSEG Site and provide 
habitat for wildlife that frequent the area. The quality of the habitat provided by wetlands at the 
site is impacted by the fact that much of the area is dominated by the invasive common reed 
(Phragmites australis). These wetlands are regulated under the authority and jurisdiction of the 
USACE and NJDEP (Section 2.4.1). 

The USACE approach is that mitigation may only be used after all appropriate and practical 
steps to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to aquatic resources, including nontidal wetlands 
and streams, have been taken. Further, the USACE requires all remaining unavoidable impacts 
to be compensated to the extent appropriate and practicable. The USACE could monitor or 
require monitoring for compliance with the USACE-issued permits. The USACE permit could 
include special conditions that could require PSEG to ensure that the created and enhanced 
wetlands meet the Federal wetland criteria outlined in the report entitled Corps of Engineers 
Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE 1987-TN2066). If the USACE did not find the wetlands 
and stream mitigation satisfactory, it could determine whether adverse impacts to the waterway 
and wetlands were more than minimal and any project modifications could be warranted. Also, 
the USACE would require PSEG to assume all liability for accomplishing the corrective work in 
accordance with Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources (73 FR 19594- 
TN1789; 33 CFR Part 320-TN424; 33 CFR Part 325-TN425). 

PSEG could take measures to avoid or minimize impacts to jurisdictional wetlands to the 
maximum extent possible. A new nuclear power plant on the PSEG Site would be located 
adjacent to the existing HCGS and SGS facilities on Artificial Island. Mitigation measures to be 
taken to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to waters of the United States could include the 
following: minimizing encroachment into coastal wetlands: minimizing encroachment into 
NJDEP-regulated freshwater wetlands: use of already existing sediment disposal basins for 
plant development (i.e., the PSEG permitted disposal facility and the USACE CDF); refinement 
of the PSEG Site Utilization Plan (Figure 2-2) to avoid various wetland areas throughout the 
PSEG Site; and a causeway built on elevated piers or bridges, instead of on fill, to minimize 
direct impacts to tidal wetlands and to avoid impacts to tidal creeks (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Additional measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts to wetlands could be formulated 
following the selection of a reactor technology and could continue to be devised throughout the 
design phase as detailed site layouts were developed. This could include the evaluation of soil 
management and use options aimed at reducing the limits of construction (i.e., fill areas) to 
reduce the impact footprint from that shown on the PSEG Site Utilization Plan (Figure 2-2). The 
options available would depend on the technology chosen. The process of determining the 
most environmentally sensitive and practicable alternatives could continue throughout the 
permitting process (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Compensatory Actions 

Following the implementation of reasonable measures to avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands, 
compensation for unavoidable adverse impacts could be undertaken with the execution of an 
approved wetland restoration and/or rehabilitation program. In selecting a site for wetland 


November 2015 


4-41 


NUREG-2168 



Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


mitigation, the following factors are typically considered: existing land use (historic and current), 
property ownership or potential for acquisition, hydrologic potential, proximity to other wetland 
sites, site topography, connectivity to adjacent natural habitats, site accessibility, and the 
presence of or potential to develop hydric soils (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Opportunities for wetland mitigation exist at various locations throughout the PSEG Site 
and vicinity. Factors that may influence site selection for wetland creation include 
topography, soil types, watershed size, and the presence of adjacent streams as a 
source of additional water (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Once a candidate mitigation site has been selected, wetland mitigation could be achieved 
through a series of rehabilitation and/or restoration methods. These methods could be 
site-specific and might include the control of Phragmites, restoration of the hydrologic state 
(levee removal, channel design, and reestablishing a connection of upland areas to tidal 
influences), and wetland enhancement that included the restoration of desirable and native 
vegetation (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Wetland mitigation plan details would primarily be guided by conditions established under CWA 
Section 404 permits issued by the USACE or the NJDEP Land Use Regulation Program and 
Section 401 water-quality certifications issued by NJDEP. Therefore, specific wetland mitigation 
efforts could be determined as part of such authorizations (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Several candidate mitigation areas that have the potential to meet some or all of PSEG wetland 
mitigation needs were identified during the ESP application process. These candidate 
mitigation areas include portions of the existing PSEG Site, Mannington Meadow, Mason’s 
Point, and additional areas of the PSEG ACW Site (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Wetland mitigation concepts for each area are outlined below and include the enhancement 
and/or development of coastal and freshwater wetland systems. A network of marsh creeks is 
integral to the restoration of coastal marsh and would address the loss of creeks within the 
existing marsh. 

Onsite 

The PSEG Site includes about 149 ac of Phragmites -dominated wetlands that could be used for 
wetlands mitigation. Most onsite wetlands are tidally influenced coastal wetlands where 
Phragmites control may allow Spartina (cordgrass) and other native marsh species to 
revegetate (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Mannington Meadow 

Mannington Meadow is a brackish estuary located on the Salem River in Salem County, New 
Jersey. It provides significant habitat for numerous species of migrating, wintering, and 
breeding birds, including waterfowl, shorebirds, and raptors. The area also supports a brackish- 
and freshwater-based fishery. Mannington Meadow contains open water, emergent wetlands, 
and adjacent farmland. The presence of degraded marsh in this area provides the potential for 
restoration opportunities for conversion into a functional tidal brackish ecosystem. The keys to 
successful restoration in this area could include increasing the incoming freshwater flow from 


NUREG-2168 


4-42 


November 2015 


Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


the Salem River and reducing the coverage of Phragmites to allow Spartina and other desirable 
marsh species to revegetate the area. Mannington Meadow is a large enough area (3,800 ac) 
to provide good mitigation opportunities; however, much of it is in private, State, or Federal 
ownership (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Mason's Point 

Mason's Point, located in Elsinboro Township near Alloway Creek, is 2.5 mi upstream from the 
creek confluence with the Delaware River. Mason’s Point existed as an impounded coastal 
marsh with near monotypic stands of Phragmites in the mid-1990s. Levee failure after that time 
opened the system to limited and inefficient tidal flow from Alloway Creek into portions of the 
site. Full salt marsh restoration through levee removal and channel installation could restore the 
natural daily tidal exchange. In addition, Phragmites control could promote the revegetation of 
the site by Spartina and other desirable marsh species. Mason’s Point is owned by the State of 
New Jersey and is 1,000 ac in area (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Alloway Creek Watershed 

The western portion of the PSEG ACW Site is not part of the PSEG EEP restoration area. The 
ACW is located in Elsinboro and Lower Alloways Creek Townships in Salem County, New 
Jersey. The ACW was originally part of the more than 2,800-ac Alloway Creek site in the PSEG 
EEP. Therefore, herbicide control was applied at the beginning of the program. Afterward, the 
Alloway Creek EEP site was reduced in size. This left more than 1,400 ac in the western 
portion of the ACW unrestored outside the PSEG EEP restoration area. Currently, this western 
portion is a non-impounded coastal marsh with monotypic stands of Phragmites. The key 
component of restoration would consist of Phragmites control to allow Spartina and other 
desirable marsh species to revegetate (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

4.3.1.5 Summary of Construction Impacts on Terrestrial and Wetland Resources 

Preconstruction and construction activities associated with building a new nuclear power plant 
on the PSEG Site would have a negligible impact on most terrestrial resources. Also, building 
activities are expected to have a minimal effect on important species on the PSEG Site. 
However, the permanent loss of 108 ac and the temporary loss of about 62 ac would have a 
noticeable, but not destabilizing, effect on wetland resources at the PSEG Site. Additionally, 
preconstruction activities would temporarily affect about 30 ac of offsite wetland resources. 
Mitigation of wetland resources may be warranted. 

Based on the above information, the review team concludes that impacts on terrestrial 
resources from building a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site would be MODERATE. 

The MODERATE impact level is associated with the loss of 108 ac of important wetland 
resources, and the NRC-authorized activities would be significant contributors to the noticeable 
impact. However, given the amount of wetland resources in the area, the review team 
determined that the habitat loss would not destabilize wetland resources in the vicinity. 


November 2015 


4-43 


NUREG-2168 


Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


4.3.2 Aquatic Impacts 

Before initiating any site-preparation or development activities, PSEG would be required to 
obtain the appropriate authorizations regulating alterations to waters of the United States, 
including ponds and creeks. The list of probable authorizations is presented in Section 4.2, 
with additional detail in Appendix H. Site-preparation activities that could directly affect onsite 
and offsite aquatic ecosystems include site preparation for installing plant structures and cooling 
towers, switchyards, and the temporary laydown area; making improvements to the HCGS 
barge slip; building the barge storage area and unloading facility (also referred to as the barge 
unloading and mooring facility in the USACE public notice [USACE 2014-TN4319]) and adjacent 
heavy haul road bulkhead; installing the cooling water system intake and discharge structures; 
and building the proposed causeway. Aquatic habitats potentially affected include the onsite 
desilt basins and small marsh creeks, habitats associated with the Delaware River Estuary, and 
the interconnected system of tidal wetlands and marsh creeks primarily north of the PSEG Site. 
Potential direct impacts on aquatic resources as a result of site-preparation activities would 
involve physical alteration of habitat (e.g., infilling, dredging, pile driving) including temporary or 
permanent removal of associated benthic organisms, sedimentation, changes in hydrological 
regimes, and changes in water quality. Potential indirect impacts include increased runoff from 
impervious surfaces and subsequent erosion and sedimentation and isolation of marsh creek 
segments due to infilling (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

4.3.2 .7 Aquatic Resources - Site and Vicinity 

Desilt Basins and Onsite Marsh Creeks 

The desilt basins located on the PSEG Site have variable surface area depending on use and 
operation of the basins for dredge disposal operations (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The desilt basins 
within the proposed power block and cooling tower areas are perched water bodies used for 
rainfall and stormwater management and have no surface-water connection to the Delaware 
River Estuary or adjacent small marsh creeks on the site. Site-preparation and building 
activities for a new nuclear power plant and cooling towers would involve filling in the desilt 
basins and thus would result in complete conversion of these desilt basins to industrial land use. 
Sampling surveys of these desilt basins and other nearby small onsite marsh creeks for fish and 
macroinvertebrates indicate low-diversity communities characterized by resident fish and 
macroinvertebrate species that are generally ubiquitous in shallow aquatic freshwater systems 
of the mid-Atlantic coastal region, as described in Section 2.4.2.1. In addition, the desilt basins 
do not provide unique aquatic habitat or support populations of important aquatic species. 
Erosion and runoff mitigation practices would be used to prevent siltation from building activities 
in nearby small marsh creeks on the site (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Although loss of all aquatic 
species in the desilt basins would occur, the loss would have a negligible effect on aquatic 
resources in the vicinity. 

The most dominant and biologically productive of the aquatic ecosystems in the vicinity of the 
site and those areas north of the site are the tidally influenced wetlands and their interconnected 
system of marsh creeks. Potential building impacts to marsh creeks located on the site include 
infilling and elimination of portions of the marsh creek system. Although some small and 
localized areas of habitat would be lost or impaired by building activities, large amounts of 


NUREG-2168 


4-44 


November 2015 






Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


similar habitat exist throughout the site. Fish and mobile macroinvertebrates could relocate to 
other areas of the marsh creek system not affected by building activities. The marsh creek and 
channelized stream segments that would be affected by building activities are not known to 
support any Federally or State-listed species, nor do they provide unique aquatic habitats that 
are not available nearby. Stormwater control, erosion control, stream crossing, and 
sedimentation BMPs would be followed in accordance with Federal and New Jersey permitting 
requirements for water quality (PSEG 2015-TN4280). PSEG estimates permanent loss of 
7,265 linear ft of creek channels and potential isolation of 2,320 linear ft of marsh creek 
channels from their tidal connection due to placement of fill from the switchyard, power block, 
temporary laydown, causeway, and cooling tower areas (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Within the 
nearby ACW Site there are a total of 16,343 channelized streams with a total estimated length 
of 1,105,485 ft (see Figure 2-21). Therefore, the permanent loss of onsite marsh creeks due to 
site preparation and building a new nuclear power plant would be equivalent to only 0.7 percent 
of the total marsh creek density within this one wetland restoration area (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Offsite Marsh Creek Drainages 

An estimated 2,123 linear ft of marsh creek channels off the site would be crossed by the 
proposed causeway (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Installation of the elevated causeway would require 
permanent pier placement for support structures. However, PSEG plans to avoid placement in 
stream channels (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Runoff from disturbed areas would be temporary and 
controlled through the use of BMPs required for water quality in compliance with Federal and 
New Jersey permitting (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Pile driving for pier placement would create 
short-term noise disturbances. The marsh creek system and wetlands within the coastal 
wetlands surrounding the site are characterized by a high density of channelized streams that 
have low biological diversity and productivity, as described in Sections 2.4.1.1 and 2.4.2.1. 
Aquatic organisms in the vicinity are mobile and would likely avoid the area of installation. 

Delaware River Estuary 

Installation activities with the potential to affect the aquatic resources of the Delaware River 
Estuary include improvements to and use of the existing HCGS barge slip, a new barge storage 
area and unloading facility, an adjacent heavy haul road bulkhead, and the intake and discharge 
structures along the eastern shore of the Delaware River Estuary (Figure 2-2). Shoreline 
installation and site-preparation activities would require an SWPPP. developed as part of 
NJPDES stormwater permit, which would describe BMPs to control sedimentation and erosion 
and provide stormwater management. Shoreline structures would be hardened to protect them 
from shoreline erosion using placement of concrete or riprap (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 
Approximately 1 ac of open water would be filled (average width of fill would be 10 ft) due to 
placement of the bulkhead cap and sheeting along the bulkhead shoreline (PSEG 2014- 
TN4235). 

Improvements to the HCGS barge slip would include deepening the existing barge slip by 
another 2 ft to accommodate equipment-carrying barges (Cook 2009-TN2713). An estimated 
1.350 yd 3 of dredged material would be removed within the existing HCGS barge slip to allow 
for additional clearance of barges carrying equipment to the PSEG Site. If the final plant 
designs indicate modules larger than 54 ft in width are required, the existing 60-ft-wide HCGS 


November 2015 


4-45 


NUREG-2168 


Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


barge slip may be widened an additional 20 ft along the south side of the barge slip and 
dredged an additional 2 ft below current barge slip depth. A double row of sheet piling would 
need to be placed before removal of excess earth by dredging. An estimated 5,800 yd 3 of 
material would be removed, and the existing riprap at the front end of the slip would be removed 
and then replaced at the widened river end of the slip (Cook 2009-TN2713). 

The new barge storage area and unloading facility would require dredging about 440,000 yd 3 of 
sediment to lower the river bottom by 4.5 ft over 61 ac (PSEG 2015-TN4280). An additional 
0.05 ac of river bottom habitat would be lost for installation of seven 20-ft-diameter barge 
mooring caissons. Installation of a new intake structure would require dredging of about 
225,000 yd 3 of sediment to lower the river bottom by 4.5 ft over 31 ac (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 
Dredging, grading, and backfilling activities would be required for installation of a new discharge 
structure; approximately 0.2 ac of tidal waters would be affected (PSEG 2014-TN4235). In total, 
92 ac of open water habitat would be permanently affected by dredging. Dredged material 
disposal would be either on the site or in another approved upland disposal facility (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280). 

The installation of the barge storage and unloading facility, haul road bulkhead, and intake and 
discharge structures would result in temporary disturbances to the aquatic habitat in those 
portions of the Delaware River Estuary. An increase in suspended sediments could occur 
during dredging activities; however, PSEG determined that due to the natural high turbidity of 
the Delaware Estuary at the project location, any increase in sedimentation would not be 
noticeable (PSEG 2015-TN4234). PSEG would comply with NJDEP and USACE permitting 
regulations regarding the timing and duration of dredging to avoid sensitive aquatic life stage 
development or spawning (e.g., the current USACE work window to avoid dredge activities 
occurs between March 1 and June 30) (PSEG 2015-TN4234). As described in Section 2.3.3.1, 
the review team reviewed a recent report on sediment analysis for the Delaware River Basin 
that describes sediment samples near the PSEG Site as probably/potentially suitable for aquatic 
habitat restoration projects (DERSMPW 2013-TN4204). Therefore, dredging in this area near 
the PSEG Site is unlikely to introduce adverse exposure from sediment contaminants to nearby 
aquatic biota. PSEG proposes to use a hydraulic suction dredge to further minimize increases 
in turbidity and sedimentation, to limit the duration of dredging, and to avoid the need to handle 
dredged material twice (PSEG 2015-TN4234). PSEG would also use appropriate BMPs to 
minimize sedimentation effects as required for Federal and State permitting. Motile 
invertebrates, fish, and sea turtles might swim into this portion of the Delaware River Estuary, 
but they would be able to swim away or likely would avoid the area due to dredging activity and 
noise from pile driving that may occur simultaneously. 

Mobile macroinvertebrates in this area might be able to occupy adjacent habitat in the Delaware 
River Estuary because the species composition and abundance of the macroinvertebrate 
community in the Delaware River Estuary near the site are similar to those of benthic 
communities in adjacent benthic areas of the estuary. Although permanent alteration of at least 
92 ac of river bottom habitat would occur, the impacts to aquatic communities in the vicinity are 
expected to be minimal because benthic organisms would begin to re-colonize the area 
following the completion of dredging activities (Wilber and Clarke 2007-TN4271). 


NUREG-2168 


4-46 


November 2015 




Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


The depth of the areas identified for dredging is a minimum of 10 ft (3.05 m) relative to mean 
low water with the exception of the western boundary of Artificial Island, which is shallower than 
10 ft and consists of artificially placed rock. Mitigation is not warranted because there is no 
shallow water habitat conversion to deep water habitat (PSEG 2015-TN4234), and 
compensatory mitigation is generally not required where a habitat change does not occur. 

Installation of piles would generate pulsed noise and vibrations that may affect nearby aquatic 
species. PSEG estimated acoustic effects from representative pile-driving studies to determine 
pile installation effects on aquatic biota. In-water activities included daytime installation of 24- 
in.-wide steel sheeting in the Delaware Estuary for the intake structure (650 sheet piles), the 
haul road bulkhead (2,400 sheet piles), and the barge unloading facility 20-ft-diameter caissons 
(1,200 sheet piles) with a vibratory hammer. Causeway installation would also occur during the 
daytime, and analysis was conducted for about one thousand 30-in.-square concrete piles using 
an impact hammer with additional cushioning to reduce pile head damage (PSEG 2015- 
TN4234). PSEG used the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Pile Driving Calculations 
spreadsheet model (Caltrans 2013-TN4236) to calculate isopleths for the peak sound pressure 
level (SPLpeak), cumulative sound exposure level (SEL CU m), and behavioral root mean square 
sound pressure level (SPL rm s) using specific information on piles such as installation method, 
number of piles, and type of pile. 

The criteria for fish are as follows: 

• 206 dB re: IpPa SPL pea k, 

• 187 dB re: 1pPa 2, s SEL CU m for fish > 2 cm, 183 dB re: 1pPa 2 -s SEL CU m for fish < 2 cm, and 

• 150dBre: 1pPaSPL rm s. 

The criteria for determination of the potential onset of physical injury includes exceedance of 
both the peak sound pressure level (SPLpeak) and the cumulative sound exposure level (SEL C um). 
A determination for potential behavioral effects is made using exceedance of the root mean 
square sound pressure level (SPLrms) (Caltrans 2013-TN4236). Distances from the pile-driving 
activity that exceed these criteria are presented in Table 4-3. 


Table 4-3. Estimated Acoustic Area of Effect for Fish from Pile-Driving Activities (PSEG 
2015-TN4234) 



Exceedance Distance in m (ft) 

Acoustic Criteria 

Intake 

Structure 

Haul Road 
Bulkhead 

Barge 

Caissons 

Causeway 

Peak Pressure (206 dB) 

Cumulative Sound Exposure Level (187 dB/183 dB) 

Adverse Behavioral Effects (150 dB) 

0 

40/74 

(131/243) 

74 

(243) 

0 

40/74 

(131/243) 

74 

(243) 

0 

40/74 

(131/243) 

74 

(243) 

1 O) 
216/398 
(709/1,306) 

1,166 

(3,825) 


November 2015 


4-47 


NUREG-2168 









Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


The criteria for sea turtles are as follows: 

The onset of injury from impulsive sound (pile driving) is 190 dB re: 1 pPa SPL rm s and 160 dB re: 
1 pPa SPLrms for disruption of natural behavior from impulsive sound (NAVSEA 2013-TN4237). 

Based on the NMFS model, the 206 dB SPL pea k is only exceeded immediately adjacent to pile¬ 
driving activity and does not extend 1 m (3 ft) out except for causeway installation. The 
187/183 dB SELcum for fish (which is similar to 190 dB SPL rm s for sea turtles) exceedance 
distance for the proposed causeway is 216/398 m (709/1,306 ft); however, this distance extends 
over mostly vegetated marsh plain and shallow marsh creeks, not open water (Figure 4-2). 

The behavioral effects criterion of 150 dB SPL rm s for fish is exceeded for the causeway pile 
installation up to 1,165 m (3,825 ft) from the source, which is mostly vegetated marsh plain and 
shallow marsh creeks (PSEG 2015-TN4234). For vibratory shoreline steel sheet pile 
installation at Artificial Island, caisson installation, and intake installation, the behavioral effects 
criterion exceedance for fish extends from the source out to 74 m (243 ft) into the Delaware 
River (Figure 4-2), which could also be a conservative estimate for sea turtles (criterion of 160 
dB SPLrms). 

As a comparison, PSEG also assessed vessel-related sounds for large container transport 
ships moving at 22.7 knots and smaller tugboats. Both vessel types have small behavioral 
exceedance zones for fish of 349 m (1,118 ft) and 10.9 m (36 ft), respectively (PSEG 2015- 
TN4234), which are shown in Figure 4-2. 

Vessel use during dredging activities, installation of the in-water structures, offloading of 
materials from barges, and transportation of large system components to the PSEG Site may 
affect the aquatic resources of the Delaware River Estuary, particularly the benthos or benthic 
dwelling organisms. The main impacts of vessel use would include turbulence from propellers 
(prop wash), collisions with aquatic species, and accidental spills of materials overboard. PSEG 
estimated the annual number of vessel trips for the installation activities correlated to the 
activities described for the Department of the Army permit to be between 247 and 357. This is 
an incremental increase to the reported annual average of 4,485 commercial vessel trips in the 
Delaware River and Estuary between 2007 and 2014 (PSEG 2015-TN4234). PSEG assessed 
the possibility of barge traffic near the PSEG Site coming within 1 m of the bottom was limited to 
the deepest draft vessels, which would be required for delivery of the heaviest power plant 
components and would be limited to slow travel speeds and delivery times at high tide during 
calm weather (PSEG 2015-TN4234). Plant heavy component construction activity would not 
occur under an ESP and would be reviewed under a COL application to construct and operate a 
new nuclear plant. The review team determined that vessel traffic during site-preparation 
activities would result in minimal disturbance to benthic habitats associated with the PSEG Site 
as it would occur in deeper waters associated with the installation of piles or dredging activities 
and should not affect the general resources in the region along this coast of the Delaware River 
Estuary. 


NUREG-2168 


4-48 


November 2015 



Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 



Figure 4-2. Acoustic Criteria Isopleths for In-Water and Nearshore Pile-Driving Activities 
(PSEG 2015-TN4275) 


November 2015 


4-49 


NUREG-2168 























Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


4.3.2.2 Important A qua tic Species and Habitats 

This section describes the potential impacts on important aquatic species resulting from site 
preparation for a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site, including the HCGS barge slip 
improvements, barge storage area and unloading facility, haul road bulkhead, intake and 
discharge structures, and causeway. The review team has determined that building impacts on 
aquatic resources would be limited to the onsite desilt basins and small marsh creeks, marsh 
creek and stream drainages, and a small portion of the Delaware River Estuary. The general 
life histories of these species are presented in Section 2.4.2. The review team prepared a BA 
and an essential fish habitat (EFH) assessment and supplemental documents for the NMFS 
(see Appendix F) documenting the potential impacts on the Federally listed threatened and 
endangered aquatic species for the BA and managed species for the EFH assessment 
identified in correspondence from the NMFS (NMFS 2010-TN2171; NMFS 2013-TN2804). 

Commercial/Recreational Species 

American Eel ( Anguilla rostrata) and White Perch ( Morone americana) have been observed in 
the desilt basins and marsh creeks, and the Atlantic Menhaden ( Brevoortia tyrannus) and 
Striped Bass (M. saxatiiis ) were observed in the marsh creeks (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Filling in 
the onsite desilt basins would remove this habitat and result in a loss of all species present in 
these water bodies. However, only a few American Eel and White Perch were observed in 
these habitats, where harvesting is not permitted, and these species are abundant elsewhere in 
the offsite marsh creek drainages and in the Delaware River Estuary (see Tables 2-10 and 2-11 
in Section 2.4.2.1). Thus, removal of onsite desilt basin habitats would not noticeably affect 
population abundances for the commercial or recreational fishery of these species. 

All commercial and recreational species listed in Section 2.4.2.1 with the exception of the Silver 
Hake ( Merluccius bilinearis ), the eastern oyster ( Crassostrea virginica), the horseshoe crab 
(.Limulus polyphemus), the knobbed whelk ( Busycon carica), the channeled whelk ( Busycotypus 
canaliculatus), and the northern quahog clam ( Mercenaria mercenaria) have been observed in 
the Delaware River Estuary in the immediate vicinity of the PSEG Site between 2003 and 2010 
(PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; 

PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571). 

Building and dredging activities associated with the HCGS barge slip improvements, barge 
storage area and unloading facility, haul road bulkhead, intake structure, and discharge 
structure may affect local habitat use by these species due to noise avoidance and sediment 
dispersion. These impacts are expected to be temporary and minimized with the use of BMPs 
as described in Section 4.3.2.1 to minimize sedimentation and erosion. It is expected that fish 
and blue crabs ( Callinectes sapidus) would use nearby unaffected habitat and would resume 
use of the habitats within the Delaware River Estuary near the PSEG Site after completion of 
these activities. In addition, these species are present throughout the Delaware River Estuary 
region, and any effects on commercial or recreational fisheries due to installation activities in the 
Delaware River Estuary associated with a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site are not 
expected to be noticeable. Although eastern oyster beds are present within 6 mi of Artificial 
Island to the south, the localized building, dredging, and installation activities are not expected 
to affect these oyster beds. 


NUREG-2168 


4-50 


November 2015 











Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Ecologically Important Species 

All four ecologically important species described in Section 2.4.2.3 are present in the Delaware 
River Estuary in the vicinity of the PSEG Site: Blueback Herring (Alosa aestivalis ), Alewife 
(A pseudoharengus ), Atlantic Silverside (Menidia menidia ), and Bay Anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). Building and dredging activities associated with the HCGS barge slip 
improvements, the new barge storage area and unloading facility, haul road bulkhead, intake 
structure, and discharge structure may affect the presence of or habitat use by these species in 
the vicinity of these activities due to noise avoidance and increased sedimentation. These 
impacts are expected to be temporary and minimized with the use of BMPs to reduce 
sedimentation and erosion. It is expected that these fish would also avoid noise and vibration 
associated with pile-installation activities, use nearby unaffected habitat, and would resume use 
of the habitats within the Delaware River Estuary near the PSEG Site after completion of 
building activities. 

Federally and State-Listed Species 

As part of their responsibilities under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 
1531 et seq. -TNI010), the review team (NRC and USACE staff) prepared a BA documenting 
potential impacts on Federally listed threatened or endangered aquatic species as a result of 
building activities at the PSEG Site. The review team received comments from NMFS (2014- 
TN4203) and additional clarification on comments (NRC 2015-TN4209) and then prepared a 
supplemental BA. The BA and the supplement are provided in Appendix F and the findings and 
determinations are summarized in this section. No critical habitat has been designated for 
aquatic species under NMFS jurisdiction in the action area, which is considered the area that 
may be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed action (NMFS 2014-TN4238). 

Sea Turtles 


The Federally threatened Northwest Atlantic distinct population segment of the loggerhead sea 
turtle (Caretta caretta) and the Federally endangered Kemp’s ridley turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) 
are known to occur in the Delaware River Estuary in the vicinity of the PSEG Site and may swim 
near the SGS cooling water intake area (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The Federally endangered 
Atlantic green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) is also known to occur in the Delaware River Estuary 
near the PSEG Site (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Sea turtles may be affected by noise from 
installation of piles. In addition, some sea turtles rely on fish prey species that may also be 
affected by pile installation noise. PSEG provided an analysis using criteria accepted by NMFS 
for estimating exceedance distances to determine cumulative sound exposure effects and 
behavioral adverse effects to fish from pile-driving activities. Figure 4-2 shows the areas for 
noise effects, which will occur over a period of approximately 50 days for causeway piling 
installation, 10 days for intake structure sheet piles, and 20 days each for haul road bulkhead 
and caisson sheet pile installation (PSEG 2015-TN4234). While sea turtle effects were not 
specifically assessed, the exceedance distances provide a conservative analysis for sea turtle 
for injury effect and adverse behavioral effect. Given the short duration of activity, and the 
abundance of nearby, adjacent unaffected habitat, it is likely that sea turtles and their mobile 
prey will avoid the zones of cumulative sound and adverse behavioral effects (NMFS 2014- 
TN4239). Disruption of habitat in the Delaware River Estuary from sedimentation and scouring 


November 2015 


4-51 


NUREG-2168 








Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


due to propeller wash is expected to be localized and temporary (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Sea 
turtles likely would avoid habitats in the area of incoming and outgoing barge traffic and could 
find unaffected habitat nearby for foraging activities. Therefore, effects on sea turtles and their 
prey from dredging, pile-driving activities, and barge traffic would be minor. 

Shortnose Sturgeon 

Federally endangered Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) spawn in freshwater 
habitats in the Delaware River that are well upstream of the PSEG Site near Delaware River 
Mile (RM) 52. Surveys of Shortnose Sturgeon movement in the Delaware River Estuary 
revealed an overwintering population of about 6,000 to 14,000 fish in the upper tidal portion of 
the Delaware River Estuary near Trenton at Delaware RM 131.6 (Hastings et al. 1987-TN2260). 
Shortnose Sturgeon move upstream into the nontidal reach of the river in late March, 
presumably to spawn before traveling downstream to lower tidal waters near Philadelphia 
(O'Herron et al. 1993-TN2261). Therefore, building activities in the Delaware River Estuary 
near the PSEG Site are not likely to affect Shortnose Sturgeon eggs or larvae. Migrating 
juvenile and adult Shortnose Sturgeon may occur in Delaware River Estuary waters affected 
by building activities at the PSEG Site. One Shortnose Sturgeon was collected in a trawling 
sample from the Delaware River Estuary near the site in 2004 (PSEG 2005-TN2566), and two 
Shortnose Sturgeon were collected in 2008 and one in 2010 from bottom trawl sampling 
between Delaware River Kilometer (RKM) 100 and RKM 120 (RM 62.1 and RM 74.6) to the 
north of the PSEG Site (PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2011-TN2571). It is expected that some 
dredging will coincide with pile-driving activities previously described, and thus discourage 
sturgeon and other fish species from foraging in the immediate area as described for similar in¬ 
water activates in the Hudson River (NMFS 2014-TN4239). Disruption of habitat for foraging in 
these areas of the Delaware River Estuary is expected to be minor and temporary, due to use of 
hydraulic dredge technology, and compliance with USACE and NJDEP work window 
requirements. Like sea turtles, sturgeon may be affected by vibration and noise from sheet pile 
installation and an increase in barge traffic. However, given the short duration of activity, and 
the abundance of nearby, adjacent unaffected habitat, it is likely that Shortnose Sturgeon and 
their mobile prey will avoid the zones of cumulative sound and adverse behavioral effects 
(NMFS 2014-TN4239). As described for sea turtles, Shortnose Sturgeon would likely avoid 
habitats in the area of incoming and outgoing barge traffic and could find unaffected habitat 
nearby for foraging activities. Therefore, adverse effects to Shortnose Sturgeon and their prey 
from dredging, pile installation activities, and barge traffic would be minor. 

Atlantic Sturgeon 

The Federally endangered Atlantic Sturgeon {Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) has life history 
characteristics similar to those of the Shortnose Sturgeon with the exception of a preference for 
more marine habitats. Tagging studies in 2005 and 2006 indicated that Atlantic Sturgeon 
followed migration patterns similar to those of the Shortnose Sturgeon, with spawning potentially 
occurring from mid-to-late June in the upper tidal Delaware reaches between Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania, and Trenton, New Jersey (Simpson and Fox 2007-TN2194). Atlantic Sturgeon 
juveniles were also observed around Artificial Island between 1991 and 1998 (ASSRT 2007- 
TN2082). A single Atlantic Sturgeon was collected in years 2004 and 2009 in bottom trawl 
sampling in Delaware River Estuary waters between Delaware RKM 100 and RKM 120 (RM 


NUREG-2168 


4-52 


November 2015 







Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


62.1 and RM 74.6) to the north of the PSEG Site (PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2010-TN2570). 

It is expected that some dredging will coincide with the pile-driving activities previously 
described, and thus discourage fish species from foraging in the immediate area (NMFS 2014- 
TN4239). Disruption of habitat for foraging in these areas of the Delaware River Estuary is 
expected to be minor and temporary, due to use of hydraulic dredge technology and compliance 
with USACE and NJDEP work window requirements. Like sea turtles and Shortnose Sturgeon, 
Atlantic Sturgeon may be affected by vibration and noise from sheet pile installation and an 
increase in barge traffic. However, given the short duration of activity, and the abundance of 
nearby, adjacent unaffected habitat, it is likely that Atlantic Sturgeon and their mobile prey will 
avoid the zones of cumulative sound and adverse behavioral effects (NMFS 2014-TN4239). As 
described above, Atlantic Sturgeon would likely avoid habitats in the area of incoming and 
outgoing barge traffic and could find unaffected habitat nearby for foraging activities. Therefore, 
adverse effects to Atlantic Sturgeon and their prey from dredging, pile installation activities, and 
barge traffic would be minor. 

Essential Fish Habitats 

The evaluation of EFHs for the Delaware River Estuary includes a determination for the 
presence of Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs), as well as a site-specific assessment 
offish habitat. HAPCs are identified geographical areas that have elevated importance, provide 
important ecological functions, and are vulnerable to degradation. No HAPCs occur in the 
Delaware River Estuary (NOAA 2013-TN2177). Site-specific assessments offish habitats 
associated with the Delaware River Estuary in the vicinity of the HCGS barge facility, barge 
storage and unloading facility, haul road bulkhead, and intake and discharge structures are 
presented in Appendix F. The review team prepared a supplemental EFH to address additional 
comments from NMFS related to wetlands alterations, dredging activities, and pile installation 
activities (NMFS 2014-TN4203; NRC 2014-TN4208). The EFH assessment and supplemental 
information document in Appendix F provide the known distributions and records of managed 
species and life stages and the potential ecological impacts of building activities on the species, 
their habitats, and their prey. Based on the PSEG plan for developing a new nuclear power 
plant at the PSEG Site, the review team believes that short-term impacts to EFHs associated 
with dredging, pile installation activities, and barge traffic would be minimal. 

4.3.2.3 A quatic Monitoring 

The potential impacts to aquatic resources from building a new nuclear power plant and 
associated facilities would be monitored under the terms of authorizations from Federal and 
State agencies (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Site engineering controls, BMPs as described in 
Section 4.3.2.1, erosion-control measures, and siltation control measures would be used to 
manage stormwater runoff and keep accidental spills from affecting nearby surface waters 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). PSEG would adhere to the seasonal in-water timing restrictions that are 
imposed by the USACE and NJDEP for dredging and other in-water work to avoid sensitive 
spawning or recruitment windows to minimize these effects (PSEG 2015-TN4234). 

4.3.2.4 Potential Mitigation Measures for A quatic Impacts 

Impacts on aquatic resources are expected to be temporary because fish and mobile 
invertebrates likely would avoid areas of building activity in the marsh creeks and Delaware 


November 2015 


4-53 


NUREG-2168 





Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


River Estuary. PSEG plans to consult with local, State, and Federal agencies regarding any 
additional and practicable mitigation needs related to the development of the PSEG Site 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

4.3.2.5 Summary of Impacts to A qua tic Resources 

The review team has reviewed the preconstruction and construction activities associated with 
a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site and the potential impacts of those activities on 
aquatic biota in the desilt basins and small marsh creeks, the marsh creek systems, and the 
Delaware River Estuary. Preconstruction and construction activities would have the largest 
effect on the desilt basins and some onsite marsh creek communities, and minor effects on 
aquatic communities in the offsite marsh creeks and Delaware River Estuary. 

Filling in the desilt basins and small marsh creeks would result in a loss of those habitats. 
However, the loss of habitat and species in the marsh creeks is expected to be minimal 
compared to similar unaffected marsh creek habitats in the region. 

Installation of the new barge unloading facility, haul road bulkhead, and water intake and 
discharge structures and improvements to the HCGS barge slip would result in temporary 
impacts at distinct locations within the Delaware River Estuary, but these would be largely 
controlled by the use of BMPs associated with the management of water quality. Based on this 
review, the review team concludes that the impacts resulting from the preconstruction and 
construction activities would be minimal. 

Based on the information provided by PSEG and the above observations from the review team’s 
independent evaluation, the review team concludes that impacts to onsite aquatic biota during 
preconstruction and construction would be SMALL, provided PSEG complies with BMPs 
required for Federal and State permitting. Based on the above analysis, and because the 
NRC-authorized construction activities represent only a portion of the analyzed activities, the 
review team concludes that the impacts of the NRC-authorized construction activities would be 
SMALL and no further mitigation measures would be warranted. 

4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts 

Preconstruction and construction activities (the review team will refer to these as building 
activities) at the PSEG Site could affect individual communities, the surrounding region, and 
minority and low-income populations. This section assesses the impacts of these building- 
related activities and the associated workforce on the region. The review team reviewed the 
PSEG ER (PSEG 2015-TN4280) and verified the data sources used in its preparation by 
examining cited references and independently confirming data in discussions with community 
members and public officials (NRC 2012-TN2499). To verify data in the ER, the review team 
requested clarifications and additional information from PSEG as needed. Unless otherwise 
specified in the sections below, the review team has drawn upon verified data from PSEG 
(PSEG 2012-TN2450; PSEG 2012-TN2370). Where the review team used different analytical 
methods or additional information for its own analysis, the sections include explanatory 
discussions and citations for the additional sources. 


NUREG-2168 


4-54 


November 2015 




Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Although the review team considered the entire region within a 50-mi radius of the PSEG Site 
when assessing socioeconomic impacts, because of expected commuter patterns, the 
distribution of residential communities in the area, and the likely socioeconomic impacts, the 
review team identified a primary economic impact area composed of the four counties nearest 
the site—Salem, Cumberland, and Gloucester Counties in New Jersey and New Castle County 
in Delaware—as the area with the greatest potential for economic impacts. 

Section 4.4.1 presents a summary of the physical impacts of the project. Section 4.4.2 provides 
a description of the demographic impacts. Section 4.4.3 describes the economic impacts, 
including impacts on the local and state economy and tax revenues. Section 4.4.4 describes 
the impacts on infrastructure and community services. Section 4.4.5 summarizes the 
socioeconomic impacts of building activities at the PSEG Site. 

4.4.1 Physical Impacts 

Building activities can cause temporary and localized physical impacts such as noise, fugitive 
dust, air emissions, and visual aesthetic disturbances. The review team expects these impacts 
would be mitigated by compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local environmental 
regulations and site-specific permit conditions. All of the mitigation activities discussed below 
are identified in the PSEG ER (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Vibration and shock impacts are not 
expected because of the strict control of blasting and other shock-producing activities. This 
section discusses potential impacts on people, buildings, and roads from building activities. 

4.4. 7.7 Workers and the Local Public 

This section discusses potential impacts of air emissions, noise, and vibrations on workers, 
nearby residents, and transient visitors to the immediate area around the PSEG Site. The 
proposed PSEG Site is located adjacent to three existing nuclear power plants: the HCGS unit 
and SGS Units 1 and 2 in Lower Alloways Creek Township, Salem County, New Jersey. The 
PSEG Site is located on the southern part of Artificial Island on the east bank of the Delaware 
River, about 15 mi south of the Delaware Memorial Bridge, 18 mi south of Wilmington, 

Delaware, 30 mi southwest of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and 7.5 mi southwest of Salem, New 
Jersey. 

The nearest residences to the PSEG Site are located about 2.8 mi to the west in New Castle 
County, Delaware, and about 3.4 mi to the east-northeast in the Hancock’s Bridge community of 
Salem County, New Jersey (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The closest recreational areas are the 
Augustine Beach Access Area and Augustine Wildlife Area, which are about 3.1 and 3.6 mi 
across the Delaware River from the PSEG Site. Because of these distances and the use of 
BMPs, residents of the area are not expected to experience impacts in the form of noise, 
vibrations, or fugitive dust associated with onsite building activities. 

Because physical impacts attenuate rapidly with distance, onsite workers involved in building 
activities for a new plant would experience the most direct exposure to physical impacts, 
followed by operational workers at the adjacent HCGS and SGS. The welfare of construction 
and operations workers is regulated by the Federal Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA). The use of heavy equipment for batch concrete production, excavation, 


November 2015 


4-55 


NUREG-2168 


Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


drilling, and pile driving would generate noise, fugitive dust, emissions, and vibrations affecting 
both the building site and neighboring areas. OSHA requires all contractors, vendors, and other 
parties involved in building a new plant to follow BMPs to minimize and control dust, to use 
personal protective equipment and masks in areas of high dust, to properly maintain equipment 
to minimize harmful emissions, and to implement safety measures such as protective earplugs 
and other hearing protection to reduce noise impacts to workers (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Most 
members of the operational workforce at HCGS and SGS work indoors and would experience 
only intermittent exposure to the increased fugitive dust, emissions, and noise associated with 
building a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site. Consequently, the review team 
determined the physical impacts to onsite workers to be minimal. 

Workers involved in building the proposed 4.8-mi-long causeway would be less likely to 
experience the effects of fugitive dust, emissions, noise, and vibrations because less equipment 
and fewer materials would be involved in these efforts and most of the work would occur away 
from the PSEG Site. In addition, contractors involved in these activities would use the BMPs 
discussed previously to minimize impacts on the workforce (PSEG 2015-TN4280). According to 
PSEG, the closest residence is a single home located to the west of the intersection of the 
causeway and Mason Point Road. The causeway would be built over marshland where no one 
resides, reducing any potential physical impacts (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The review team 
determined that physical impacts from emissions, noise, and fugitive dust during causeway 
construction would be minor and temporary. 

The physical impacts to the workers and the local public from building activities at the PSEG 
Site and the offsite causeway would be minimal and would be considered an annoyance or 
nuisance, and no further mitigation beyond that identified by the applicant in its ER is warranted. 

4.4.1.2 Noise 

The main sources of noise during building at the PSEG Site would be from earthmoving 
activities, concrete mixers, cranes, portable generators, pile driving, and paving breakers. 

These activities would have a noise level of 80-88 dBA at 50 ft and 50-58 dBA at 1,500 ft. New 
Jersey provides regulatory limits for continuous noise sources. During the daytime, New Jersey 
has a 65-dBA limit at the property line of industrial facilities. New Jersey also has 65-dBA limits 
at residential property lines during the day and 50-dBA nighttime limits. Delaware has similar 
regulatory limits of 65 dBA at residential property lines and 55-dBA nighttime limits. The closest 
residences are 14,700 ft west and 15,900 ft east of the site (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Because of 
these distances and regulatory limits, the review team does not expect residents of the area to 
experience impacts in the form of noise during preconstruction or construction at the PSEG Site. 
Projected noise impacts from operation at the PSEG Site are discussed in further detail in 
Section 4.8.2. 

4.4.1.3 Air Quality 

Salem County is administratively in the Metropolitan Philadelphia Interstate Air Quality Control 
Region (40 CFR Part 81-TN255) and is in attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQSs) (40 CFR Part 50-TN1089) for all criteria pollutants except 8-hour ozone, 
for which Salem County is in nonattainment. Temporary and minor effects on local ambient air 


NUREG-2168 


4-56 


November 2015 


Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


quality would occur as a result of building activities. Dust particle emissions would be generated 
during land-clearing, grading, and excavation activities. Air quality would also be affected by 
engine exhaust emissions and concrete batch plant operations. PSEG would create emission- 
specific strategies and measures to comply with the NAAQS (40 CFR Part 50-TN1089) and the 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 CFR Part 63-TN1403). PSEG 
indicates it would create a dust control program (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Also, PSEG would 
need to acquire a New Jersey State Construction Air Permit. In addition, it is not known at this 
time whether an air mitigation plan will be required for this project to conform to the state 
implementation plan. 

The review team understands that some emissions from building activities are unavoidable, but 
the physical impacts from building activities would be minimal and maintained within regulatory 
limits. Therefore, mitigation beyond that identified by the applicant in its ER is not warranted. 
Further discussion about air quality in this EIS is in Section 4.7. 

4.4.1.4 Buildings 

Building activities on the PSEG Site would not be likely to affect any offsite buildings, primarily 
because of the distance separating the site from other development. As noted previously, the 
nearest residence is located 2.8 mi from the site. The nearest industrial and commercial 
buildings are located farther away and would also not be affected by onsite building activities 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

The structures with the greatest potential to be affected by building activities associated with a 
new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site would be the existing facilities at HCGS and SGS, 
which could experience vibration-related impacts associated with pile-driving activities. PSEG 
indicates that building activities would be planned, reviewed, and conducted in a manner that 
ensures no adverse effect on operations at HCGS and SGS (PSEG 2015-TN4280). In 
accordance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A (TN249), HCGS and SGS have been built to 
safely withstand shock and vibration from activities associated with development at the PSEG 
Site. The review team expects that these measures would avoid impacts to existing structures 
on the PSEG Site. Buildings along the proposed causeway route include a PSEG 
environmental project office and one residence located at the causeway’s northern terminus. 
This portion of the causeway would consist of the at-grade widening of the existing Money 
Island Road. Any pile-driving, blasting, or other activities that create significant vibration would 
occur over marshland, not along the at-grade areas near the residence on Mason Point Road 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). The review team expects that no structures would be removed to 
accomplish this widening, and the required work activities in this location would not generate 
significant vibrations. 

In summary, the review team concludes that development activities associated with a new 
nuclear power plant on the PSEG Site and the associated causeway would not affect offsite 
buildings and that impacts to buildings on the PSEG Site would be minimized through design 
and construction practices. Thus, the impact of plant development on buildings would be 
minimal, and no mitigation beyond that identified by the applicant in its ER would be warranted. 


November 2015 


4-57 


NUREG-2168 



Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


4.4.1.5 Transportation 
Roads 

Building activities at the PSEG Site would affect existing roads and traffic volumes in two ways: 
the addition of the proposed causeway would alter traffic patterns in the area, and construction 
workers and other traffic related to a new nuclear power plant and the causeway would increase 
traffic on the local roadway network. Section 2.5.2.3 describes the local transportation network 
around the PSEG Site, and Figure 2-23 depicts the road and highway system in Salem County. 

The effects of the proposed causeway on local traffic patterns would be experienced primarily 
on the roads that connect the new route to major State highways (New Jersey State Routes 45 
and 49) in the vicinity of Salem. In addition, vehicular traffic volumes in the area would increase 
due to construction workers and delivery trucks driving to and from the PSEG Site each day and 
the additional personal travel by in-migrating workers and their families. Given the size of the 
resulting increases in traffic volumes, it is likely that building activities at the PSEG Site would 
have noticeable physical impacts on some roads in the economic impact area, particularly those 
providing access to the proposed causeway, including Money Island Road, Amwellbury Road, 
Mason Point Road, Fort Elfsborg Road, Walnut Street, Hancocks Bridge Road, and Grieves 
Parkway. These impacts could warrant increased road repairs and maintenance and cause 
additional traffic congestion in some areas. The majority of road degradation would occur in 
Salem County and Lower Alloways Creek Township. Both have local ordinances that require 
the entity contributing to the degradation to provide resources to improve roadways 
(PSEG 2012-TN2370). Elsinboro Township would also experience some road degradation, but 
the township has similar land ordinances (Salem County 2013-TN2628). Consequently, due to 
the mitigating aspect from local ordinances, the review team considers the physical impacts to 
roads from building to be minimal, and mitigation beyond that identified by the applicant in its 
ER is not warranted. Section 4.4.4.1 discusses the socioeconomic impacts of the additional 
vehicular traffic on local roads and highways in the context of existing traffic volumes, road and 
intersection capacities, and level of service (LOS). 

Water 

As discussed in Section 2.5.2.3, there is an existing barge facility at the HCGS site. To support 
delivery of large components and equipment for building, PSEG indicated that the existing 
barge facility at HCGS would need to be modified and a parallel barge facility, built to regulatory 
requirements, would need to be constructed. The barge slips and the expected barge deliveries 
are expected to have a negligible impact on river traffic on the Delaware River. 

Rail 

There are no railroads within about 7 mi of the site (NRC 2011-TN3131). PSEG has not 
indicated that it would extend a rail line to the PSEG Site. The review team expects no impacts 
to rail lines in the area. 


NUREG-2168 


4-58 


November 2015 



Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


4.4.1.6 Aesthetics 

Because of the distance to occupied areas, activities associated with building a new nuclear 
power plant at the PSEG Site would be visible primarily to workers on the site, including 
operational workers at HCGS and SGS. Aesthetic impacts to offsite areas would occur mainly 
as a result of the introduction of large new elements, including cooling towers, reactor domes, 
and an elevated causeway, into the visual environment. 

Because of the unobstructed view, boaters on the Delaware River and residents and 
recreationists near the river in New Castle County, Delaware, can clearly see the 512-ft HCGS 
cooling tower, the three reactor domes associated with HCGS and SGS, and smaller structures 
on the PSEG Site. Residents of nearby portions of Salem County (primarily the Hancocks 
Bridge community) and recreationists using the Abbotts Meadow WMA are mainly able to see 
the HCGS cooling tower, although the tops of the HCGS and SGS reactor domes are also 
visible from some locations. Figure 3-1 shows the current layout of the HCGS and SGS sites 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

The majority of building activities would not be visible off the site. However, building a new 
nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site and the proposed causeway would eventually add to the 
industrial character of the PSEG Site. The principal visual features added by a new nuclear 
power plant would be cooling towers (up to 590-ft tall), reactor buildings, and the elevated 
causeway. Under Federal Aviation Administration regulations, the cooling towers would be 
appropriately marked with lighting, making them visible during nighttime hours. The elevated 
causeway would be a dominant feature in the view from the Money Island Road viewing 
platform, as is likely to also be the case in the immediately adjacent Abbotts Meadow WMA, 
which receives recreational use for hunting and bird watching. 

Even though a new nuclear power plant and causeway would be in keeping with the industrial 
character of the existing PSEG Site, the increased intensity of the visual presence of structures 
on the site plus the introduction of the elevated causeway as a dominant visual element in a 
sensitive recreational location would constitute a noticeable, but not destabilizing, impact. This 
impact would be due to the essential character of the new structures and would not be 
amenable to mitigation measures. 

4.4.1.7 Summary of Physical Impacts 

Based on the information provided by PSEG and the review team’s independent evaluation and 
outreach, the review team concludes that the physical impacts of building-related activities on 
workers and the local public from noise; on air quality; and on buildings would be SMALL, and 
no mitigation beyond that proposed by PSEG would be warranted. The physical impacts on the 
road network during building would be MODERATE. As discussed in Section 4.4.1.5, PSEG 
would provide resources to mitigate road degradation near the site. The addition of new cooling 
towers and new reactor domes at the PSEG Site, and the proposed causeway that traverses 
the EEP area, would noticeably affect the aesthetic qualities from viewpoints in New Castle and 
Salem Counties. Thus, the review team concludes that a new nuclear power plant and 
causeway would have a MODERATE physical impact on aesthetic resources and that the 
impacts would not be amenable to mitigation. 


November 2015 


4-59 


NUREG-2168 


Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Based on the above information, the review team determined the impacts of NRC-authorized 
construction activities on the physical aspects of the affected environment for MODERATE 
impact categories (roads and aesthetics) would also be MODERATE. 

4.4.2 Demography 

PSEG estimates that preconstruction activities associated with a new nuclear power plant, 
including site-preparation work and building the proposed causeway, would begin in the second 
quarter of 2015 and last about 24 months (i.e., until the second quarter of 2017) (PSEG 2012- 
TN1489). In ER Section 4.4.1.1.1.2.1, PSEG estimates that no more than 10 percent of the 
peak construction workforce (no more than 410 workers) would be needed to construct the 
causeway (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The workforce to build roads in New Jersey is typically trade 
union labor. There are sufficient numbers of these workers available within a reasonable 
commuting distance to commute daily into and out of the area. The review team expects a 
negligible demographic impact from the workforce for the causeway. 

The NRC-authorized construction activities on a new nuclear power plant would begin in the 
fourth quarter of 2016 and be completed in the third quarter of 2021 (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 
PSEG has not selected a reactor technology, but using the workforce requirements for two 
Advanced Passive 1000 (API000) reactors, PSEG estimates that 4,100 workers would be 
required during the period when construction activities were at their peak (PSEG 2012-TN2450). 
Table 4-4 presents the number of workers that would be required during each month of the 
construction period. For most socioeconomic resources, the review team analyzed only the 
impacts of the peak construction employment period as an upper bound to potential impacts, 
recognizing that impacts would likely be smaller during the rest of the building period. 

Of the 4,100 workers required at peak employment to build a new nuclear power plant, PSEG 
estimates that 2,870 (70 percent) would be construction trade workers and the remaining 
1,230 (30 percent) would be nontrade workers (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The largest trade 
workforce requirements would be for electricians and instrument fitters (12.0 percent), structural 
steel and iron workers (12.0 percent), and pipefitters (11.0 percent). PSEG estimates that most 
of the nontrade workers would be employed during the construction period to support building 
activities through vending and subcontracting, engineering and procurement, indirect support 
labor, and startup activities. 

According to an NRC study released in 1981 (Malhotra and Manninen 1981-TN1430), about 
15 to 35 percent of the trade and nontrade workforce involved in building nuclear power plants 
come from outside the 50-mi region surrounding the plants. The study also found that trade 
workers generally drew from a large labor force within the region and had lower rates of 
relocation from outside. Nontrade workers and specific trades that were not well represented in 
the region were found to have higher rates of relocation from outside the region. 


NUREG-2168 


4-60 


November 2015 



Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Table 4-4. Estimated Construction Workforce Requirements by Construction Month 


Construction 

Month 

Shift 1 

Shift 2 

Shift 3 

Total 

Percent of 
Peak 

Workforce 

1 

125 

73 

10 

208 

5 

3 

311 

182 

26 

519 

13 

6 

592 

345 

49 

986 

24 

9 

872 

509 

73 

1,454 

35 

12 

1,059 

618 

88 

1,765 

43 

15 

1,246 

727 

104 

2,077 

51 

18 

1,432 

836 

119 

2,387 

58 

21 

1,619 

945 

135 

2,699 

66 

24 

1,806 

1,054 

151 

3,011 

73 

27 

1,931 

1,126 

161 

3,218 

78 

30 

2,024 

1,181 

169 

3,374 

82 

33 

2,117 

1,235 

176 

3,528 

86 

36 

2,211 

1,290 

184 

3,685 

90 

39 

2,335 

1,362 

195 

3,892 

95 

42 

2,460 

1,435 

205 

4,100 

100 

45 

2,460 

1,435 

205 

4,100 

100 

48 

2,460 

1,435 

205 

4,100 

100 

51 

2,460 

1,435 

205 

4,100 

100 

54 

2,398 

1,399 

200 

3,997 

97 

57 

2,242 

1,308 

187 

3,737 

91 

60 

2,055 

1,199 

171 

3,425 

84 

63 

1,775 

1,035 

148 

2,958 

72 

66 

872 

509 

73 

1,454 

35 

68 

343 

200 

29 

572 

14 

Source: PSEG 2015-TN4280. 


Because of the large labor force available within the 50-mi region of the PSEG Site, which 
includes much of the Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington metropolitan area, and based on PSEG 
experience with HCGS and SGS construction, the review team believes that most of the 
workers required to build a new nuclear power plant would be drawn from the labor force within 
the region. These workers would maintain their current residences and commute to the work 
site. 

However, the number of boilermakers (103 workers) and iron workers (495 workers) required to 
build a new nuclear power plant is large compared to the number of such workers available in 
the regional labor force (596 and 2,289 workers, respectively) (DDOL 2013-TN2421; 

MDDLLR 2011-TN2422; NJLWD-TN2423). PSEG estimates that these specialty workers would 
be required from the second quarter of 2018 through the fourth quarter of 2021, a period of 
about 45 months (PSEG 2012-TN2450). Because boilermakers and iron workers are likely to 
be in demand by other construction projects in the region, the review team conservatively 
estimates that only 10 percent of the regional labor force in these two specialties would be 


November 2015 


4-61 


NUREG-2168 






Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


available to support building a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site. Thus, the review 
team expects that the region would supply 60 boilermakers and 229 iron workers, and that the 
remaining 43 boilermakers (103 minus 60) and 266 iron workers (495 minus 229) would come 
from outside the 50-mi region. This would result in the in-migration of a total of 309 trade 
workers from outside the region. 

The NRC study of migration of nuclear power plant workers (Malhotra and Manninen 1981- 
TN1430) found that nontrade workers were more likely than trade workers to migrate from 
outside the 50-mi region. However, because of the large labor force in the Philadelphia 
metropolitan area, many of the needed nontrade workers are likely to be available within the 
PSEG region. The review team concludes that it is not unreasonable to expect that 25 percent 
(the midpoint of the range identified by the NRC study) of the nontrade workers (or 308 workers) 
would migrate into the region to support building a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site. 
The nontrade workers also include the operations and maintenance staff and startup personnel, 
who would be on the site during the operations period. Socioeconomic impacts from operations 
are discussed in Section 5.4 of this EIS. 

In summary, the review team expects that at peak construction a total of 617 trade and nontrade 
workers would migrate into the 50-mi region surrounding the PSEG Site to support building a 
new nuclear power plant. This is similar to PSEG’s estimate of 634 workers. This represents 
about 15 percent of the peak workforce, a figure that is at the low end of the range identified by 
the 1981 NRC study (Malhotra and Manninen 1981-TN1430). The review team believes that 
this relatively low proportion of in-migrating workers is not unreasonable because of the large 
existing and forecast labor force within the region. Workforce requirements for building activities 
at the PSEG Site are detailed in Table 4-5. 

Not all in-migrating workers would bring families when they relocate to the area; however, to 
provide an upper bound for assessing impacts, the review team assumes that every worker 
would be accompanied by household members. The average household size is 2.55 people in 
Delaware and 2.68 people in New Jersey (USCB 2011-TN2424). To ensure that the upper 
bound of impacts is identified, the review team uses the higher household size figure for New 
Jersey to estimate that a total of 1,654 people (workers and their household members) would 
move into the region at peak employment while a new nuclear power plant is being built. This is 
similar to PSEG’s estimate of 1,712 in-migrating persons. 

In-migrating workers and their families are likely to choose to live in locations that allow 
convenient access to the PSEG Site. Therefore, the review team assumes that all of these 
workers would reside within the economic impact area. This assumption provides an upper 
bound on socioeconomic impacts by concentrating the additional population within the 
economic impact area. PSEG records indicate that, of current HCGS and SGS employees who 
live in the economic impact area, 12.1 percent reside in Cumberland County, 17.7 percent in 
Gloucester County, 49.6 percent in Salem County, and 20.6 in New Castle County 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). The review team assumes that in-migrating workers involved in building 
a new plant at the PSEG Site would follow this distribution pattern. The resulting increase in 
population within the economic impact area is summarized in Table 4-6. The in-migration of 
workers and their families to support building a new plant would increase the population of the 
economic impact area by less than about two-tenths of 1 percent. The increase would be most 


NUREG-2168 


4-62 


November 2015 



Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


pronounced in Salem County, which would experience about a 1.21 percent increase in 
population. These estimates are during peak construction and would be less during other times 
of the building phase and constitute minimal increases to the counties in the economic impact 
area. 


Table 4-5. Projected Construction Labor Availability and Onsite Labor Requirement 



Workforce 
in 50-mi 
Region 

Locally 

Available 

LaboH a) - (b) 

Construction 

Labor 

Requirement 

Deficiency 

Trade Labor 

Boilermakers 

596 (c) 

60 

103 

43 

Carpenters 

41,795 

274 

274 

0 

Electricians/ Instrument Fitters 

21,450 

495 

495 

0 

Iron Workers 

2,289 (c) 

229 

495 

266 

Insulators 

2,700 

51 

51 

0 

Laborers 

33,190 

274 

274 

0 

Cement Masons 

5,000 

51 

51 

0 

Millwrights 

1,215 

85 

85 

0 

Operating Engineers 

11,780 

222 

222 

0 

Painters 

11,535 

51 

51 

0 

Pipefitters 

18,220 

462 

462 

0 

Sheet Metal Workers 

6,755 

85 

85 

0 

Teamsters 

51,805 

85 

85 

0 

Trade Supervision 

19,690 

137 

137 

0 

Subtotal 

225,135 

2,561 

2,870 

309 

Nontrade Labor 

Site Indirect Labor 

NA< d) 

205 

273 

68 

Quality Control Inspectors 

NA 

51 

68 

17 

Vendors and Subcontractors 

NA 

179 

239 

60 

EPC Contractor Staff 

NA 

128 

171 

43 

Owner's Operations and 

NA 

256 

342 

85 

Maintenance Staff 

Startup Personnel 

NA 

77 

103 

26 

NRC Inspectors 

NA 

26 

34 

9 

Subtotal 


922 

1,230 

308 

Total Labor 


3,466 

4,100 

617 


(a) Assumes 100% of required trade labor is available in the region except for boilermakers and iron workers, 
which are limited relative to need, and it is further assumed that 10% of these two trades are available from 
within the 50-mi region. 

(b) Assumes 75% of the required nontrade workforce would be available within the 50-mi region. 

(c) From review team’s analysis. 

(d) NA = not applicable. 

Source: Unless otherwise specified, data are from PSEG ER Table 4.4-3 (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 


November 2015 


4-63 


NUREG-2168 










Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Table 4-6. Estimated Population Increase in the Economic Impact Area During the Peak 
Building Period 


County 

In-Migrating 

Workers 

Population 

Increase 

Projected 2020 
Population 

Percent 

Increase 

New Castle 

127 

341 

571,579 

0.06 

Cumberland 

75 

200 

165,200 

0.12 

Gloucester 

109 

293 

310,300 

0.09 

Salem 

306 

820 

67,700 

1.22 

Total 

617 

1,654 

1,114,779 

0.15 

Source: For projected 2020 population is Table 2-15. 


Of the 3,483 workers that are from the region, some would have been unemployed prior to 
building activities. In March 2013, the national unemployment rate for the construction industry 
was 14.7 percent (BLS 2013-TN2482). Of the workforce that would not in-migrate, the review 
team assumes that 512 would have been previously unemployed. Assuming a similar 
distribution to the in-migrating workforce, 20.6 percent of the unemployed workers would 
already reside in New Castle County (105 workers), while 79.4 percent would already reside in 
the New Jersey counties of the economic impact area. About 62 workers would be hired in 
Cumberland County, 88 in Gloucester County, and 254 in Salem County. In the economic 
impact area, 1,129 jobs would have been filled between unemployed workers and in-migrating 
workers. 

The review team concludes that the increased levels of population would not noticeably affect 
the demographic character of the economic impact area or any of its counties and therefore that 
the impact would be SMALL. 

4.4.3 Economic Impacts to the Community 

This section evaluates the economic and tax impacts on the 50-mi region from building activities 
at the PSEG Site, focusing primarily on Salem, Cumberland, and Gloucester Counties in New 
Jersey, and New Castle County in Delaware. The evaluation assesses the impacts and 
demands from the workforce for building at the PSEG Site. As indicated in Section 4.4.2, the 
review team assumes 617 workers (about 15 percent of the peak construction workforce) would 
migrate into the economic impact area. Assuming a family size of 2.68, the review team 
assumes about 1,654 people would move into the economic impact area. 

4.4.3 .7 Economy 

Direct employment for large industrial or infrastructure projects typically benefits the local 
economy. Each direct job stimulates spending on goods and services, resulting in the creation 
of indirect jobs. PSEG has not selected a reactor technology, but for the purposes of this 
analysis, the review team assumes two API 000 reactors with an output of 2,200 MW(e). This is 
the same technology PSEG used to estimate workforce requirements (PSEG 2012-TN2450). In 
Section 3.2 of this EIS, the PPE is based on four reactor technologies. The API 000 has the 
largest output in megawatts (electrical) and the largest workforce of the four technologies. 


NUREG-2168 


4-64 


November 2015 









Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Studies of new power plant construction indicate that the estimated construction costs of a 
nuclear power plant average about $4,000 per kW(e) in 2007 dollars (MIT 2009-TN2481). In 
2013, the inflation-adjusted amount would be $4,490.61 per kW(e), using the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics Consumer Price Index Inflation Calculator. Using these assumptions, the review team 
assumes a planned capacity of 2,200 MW(e) would cost about $9,879 billion in 2013 dollars. 

Given the highly specialized nature of nuclear power plant components, a large portion of the 
project’s materials and equipment would be imported from outside the region. However, a new 
nuclear power plant would require substantial amounts of bulk materials and supplies (including 
concrete, steel piping, wiring, and electrical components), some of which could be procured 
locally. Because PSEG has not selected a reactor technology, it projected the expected 
purchases of materials based on purchases during operations from 2005-2008 at HCGS and 
SGS. These estimates are in Table 4-7. The review team’s estimates in Table 4-7 are a 
reasonable estimate for the counties within the economic impact area based on the past history 
with HCGS and SGS, the review team’s experience with other licensing reviews, and the 
characteristics of the economy in the economic impact area. However, the estimates for 
purchases outside of the economic impact area represent an upper bound because the table 
assumes all purchases of supplies and services would be made in the United States. These 
estimates may be adjusted once the reactor technology and construction plan are finalized 
by PSEG. 


Table 4-7. Estimated Annual Purchases of Services and Materials During the Building 
Period 


County/State (a) 

Average 2005-2008 
Annual Purchases for 
HCGS and SGS (b > 

Percentage 
of Total 

Projected Annual 
Expenditures during 
Building (c) 

Added 

Employment per 
$1 Million Spent 

New Castle 

$6,773,114 

0.85 

$13,990,441 

149.8 

Cumberland 

$2,285,912 

0.29 

$4,721,744 

50.6 

Gloucester 

$8,351,326 

1.05 

$17,250,372 

184.7 

Salem 

$5,779,051 

0.72 

$11,937,119 

127.8 

Economic Impact 
Area Total 

$23,189,403 

2.91 

$47,899,678 

512.8 

Delaware (d) 

$7,618,649 

0.96 

$15,736,965 

168.5 

New Jersey (d) 

$503,363,601 

63.15 

$1,039,740,305 

11,131.8 

Pennsylvania (d) 

$240,995,699 

30.23 

$497,797,100 

5,329.6 

Other States 

$21,943,397 

2.75 

$45,325,950 

485.3 

Total 

$797,110,749 

100 

$1,646,500,000 

17,627.9 


(a) Table 2.5-28 of the PSEG Environmental Report (ER) (PSEG 2015-TN4280) and Request for Additional 
Information Response Env-06, Question 2.5-8 (PSEG 2012-TN2370). 

(b) Taken from total 2005-2008 amounts in Table 2.5-28 of the PSEG ER and divided by 4. 

(c) To calculate, multiply total cost of construction ($9,879 billion) by percentage of total and then divide by 6 
years for construction. 

(d) These estimates are for the entire state, not just the counties within the 50-mi radius of the PSEG Site. 

As shown in Table 4-7, building at the PSEG Site would provide a multiyear beneficial stimulus 
to the local economy. The purchases by PSEG during building would support employment in 
other sectors of the local economy at vendors and shops that provide materials and supplies for 


November 2015 


4-65 


NUREG-2168 








Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


the building phase. The U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), 
Economics and Statistics Division, provides Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II) 
regional multipliers for industry employment and earnings (BEA 2013-TN2594). The review 
team obtained multipliers from the BEA for the economic impact area. For every million dollars 
spent by PSEG on purchases of services, materials, and supplies, 10.7063 jobs would be 
supported in the economic impact area (BEA 2013-TN2594). The annual spending on services, 
materials, and supplies would support about 512 additional jobs in the economic impact area. 

In addition to the purchases of materials, supplies, and services, direct employment for the 
building activities at the PSEG Site would benefit the local economy. The size of the 
construction workforce needed for PSEG would range from a minimum of 208 workers to a 
maximum of 4,100. Assuming a 68-month construction cycle, the average number of workers 
would be 2,722 workers. 

The types of construction workers that would be used on the project and the number of 
construction workers in the economic impact area are discussed in Section 4.4.2 of this EIS. 

The annual mean wage in May 2012 for a Construction and Extraction worker (U.S. Department 
of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Standard Occupational Classification code 470000) in the 
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington Metropolitan Statistical Area was $52,200 (BLS 2012- 
TN2483). Although the size of the building workforce and associated payroll spending would 
vary depending on the building schedule and mobilization each particular year, assuming an 
average of 2,722 workers per year, the review team estimates that PSEG would spend an 
average of $142 million annually, in 2012 dollars, on payroll during building. At peak 
construction, this number rises to $214 million. 

As discussed in Section 4.4.2, most of these wages would be paid to construction workers 
residing in the economic impact area. A total of 617 workers are expected to move into the 
economic impact area at peak construction. These 617 workers would receive an estimated 
annual total of $32.21 million in compensation. PSEG would hire about 512 previously 
unemployed construction workers who would receive a total of $26.72 million in compensation. 
This total would be $58.93 million for the 1,129 newly hired workers in the economic impact area. 

New workers have an additional indirect effect on the local economy because they stimulate the 
local economy by their spending on goods and services in other industries. This spending 
results in economic demand for a fraction of another indirect job. The review team obtained 
multipliers from the BEA for the economic impact area. The review team did not include 
workers who are currently employed that would be employed at the PSEG Site because their 
direct and indirect effects are already included in the economic impact area baseline. 

In the economic impact area, BEA estimates that for every new construction job created, an 
additional 0.8224 jobs are created in the economic impact area (BEA 2013-TN2594). According 
to the analysis above, PSEG would hire 617 in-migrating workers and 512 unemployed workers 
during the peak building period, or 1,129 newly employed workers. These 1,129 direct jobs 
would result in 928 indirect jobs created (1,129 * 0.8224). For the purposes of this analysis, the 
review team expects these workers to already reside in the economic impact area. The 
estimated impacts to each county are listed in Table 4-8. BEA also estimates the indirect 
earnings multiplier in the economic impact area. This multiplier was applied to the wages of 


NUREG-2168 


4-66 


November 2015 


Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


new workers to determine the effect of direct earnings on the local economy. For every dollar of 
wages earned by new workers during peak construction, BEA estimates an additional $0.6926 
in income would be added in the economic impact area. The $58.93 million annual 
compensation at peak construction from the newly hired workers would lead to an estimated 
$40.91 million in annual indirect wages ($59.93 million * 0.6926) (BEA 2013-TN2594). 

Given the size of the economies and workforces in the economic impact area, the review team 
estimates the impact of building at the PSEG Site would be minor, and positive, except in Salem 
County where there would be noticeable and beneficial impacts from hiring previously 
unemployed direct and indirect workers and from local spending on materials and supplies. 


Table 4-8. Expected Distribution of Newly Created Workers in the Economic Impact Area 
at Peak Employment 


County 

Percent of Newly 
Hired Workers 

In-Migrating Plus 
Unemployed Workers 

Indirect Workers 
Created 

Total New 
Workers Hired 

New Castle 

20.6 

232 

191 

423 

Cumberland 

12.1 

137 

113 

250 

Gloucester 

17.7 

200 

164 

364 

Salem 

49.6 

560 

460 

1,020 


4.4.3.2 Taxes 

The tax structure for the economic impact area and region is discussed in Section 2.52.2 of this 
EIS. Primary tax revenues associated with building activities at the PSEG Site would be from 
(1) State and local taxes on worker incomes, (2) State sales taxes on worker expenditures, 

(3) State sales taxes on the purchases of materials and supplies, (4) corporate taxes, and 
(5) local property taxes or payments in lieu of taxes based on the assessed value of a new 
nuclear power plant during building. 

State and Local Income Taxes 

Delaware and New Jersey would receive additional income tax revenue from the income tax on 
wages of new workers. Table 4-9 summarizes the estimated new income tax revenue that 
would be received by the two states during peak building. The exact amount of income tax 
revenue is determined on the basis of many factors such as rates, residency status, deductions, 
and other factors. These income tax revenues would be smaller in nonpeak building years. 


Table 4-9. Estimated Increase in Income Tax Revenue Associated with Workforce 


State 

In-Migrating 

Workers 

Previously 

Unemployed 

Workers 

Estimated Annual 
Income at $52,200 
per Worker 

Income Tax 
Revenue 
from Workers 

Percent Increase 
in State Income 
Tax Revenue 

Delaware 

127 

105 

$12.11 million 

$898,304 (a) 

0.089 

New Jersey 

490 

407 

$46.82 million 

$2.94 million (b) 

0.027 

Total 

617 

512 

$58.93 million 

$3.83 million 

- 


(a) The 2012 Delaware Data Book (DEDO 2012-TN2390): Assumed Si,001 + 5.55% per worker. 

(b) State of New Jersey Gross Income Tax Overview, (NJ Treasury 2010-TN2338): Assumed a tax rate of 
6.279%, which is the average of 1.4% to 8.97% income tax rates. 


November 2015 


4-67 


NUREG-2168 









Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


The majority of the building workforce would already live in the region, would commute daily 
to and from the site, and would not have been unemployed elsewhere prior to building 
activities at the PSEG Site. For the purposes of this analysis, the review team assumes that all 
1,129 workers (unemployed and in-migrating) would live in the economic impact area and would 
pay income taxes. Of these workers, 232 would pay income tax in Delaware and 897 would pay 
income tax in New Jersey. They would provide $0.89 million and $2.94 million additional 
income tax revenue to Delaware and New Jersey, respectively. This is about a nine one- 
hundredths of 1 percent increase in Delaware and less than a three one-hundredths of 
1 percent increase in New Jersey compared to 2011 revenue. The indirect workers created 
from the building workforce would contribute further, yet minimal, revenue to the states. As 
discussed in Section 4.4.2, about 410 workers would be needed to build the causeway. These 
workers would already reside in the 50-mi region and pay income taxes to Delaware and New 
Jersey. Because the size of the causeway workforce is 10 percent of the peak building 
workforce, its impacts to State revenue would be minimal. 

PSEG pays an energy receipts tax to the State of New Jersey based on revenues from 
electricity sales. However, because PSEG would not sell electricity from a new plant during 
building, the energy receipts tax would not change from the baseline tax payments to New 
Jersey. Consequently, the review team expects the impact from extra income taxes on State 
revenue would be minimal and beneficial. 

State Sales Taxes on Worker Expenditures 

Workers would spend some of their income on goods and services that may be taxed. New 
Jersey imposes a 7 percent sales tax; however, Delaware does not impose a sales tax. No 
localities in the economic impact area impose an additional sales tax. Because Delaware 
imposes no sales tax and New Jersey’s 2011 revenue from sales taxes was more than 
$11 billion, the review team expects a minimal, beneficial impact on State sales tax revenue 
from in-migrating, previously unemployed, and indirect worker expenditures. 

State Sales Taxes on Materials and Supplies 

Section 4.4.3.1 discusses the review team’s estimates of PSEG expenditures in the economic 
impact area, region, and beyond during building. These expenditures may be subject to sales 
taxes. New Jersey and Pennsylvania have sales taxes of 7 and 6 percent, respectively. 
Delaware does not impose sales taxes. Some localities in New Jersey and Pennsylvania 
impose additional sales taxes (e.g., Philadelphia County imposes an extra 2 percent sales tax). 
However, none in the economic impact area impose extra sales taxes. The distribution of 
expenditures across the localities is not known. 

During building, the review team estimates about $1 billion a year would be spent in New Jersey 
and $500 million in Pennsylvania. These expenditures would bring in almost $73 million and 
$30 million in sales tax revenue in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, respectively (Table 4-10). 
These estimates are also an upper bound because, as discussed in Section 4.4.3.1, the review 
team assumes all expenditures during building would be in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and 
Delaware. These would account for a six-tenths of 1 percent and almost a two-tenths of 
1 percent increase in New Jersey and Pennsylvania sales tax revenues, respectively. 


NUREG-2168 


4-68 


November 2015 



Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Therefore, the review team believes that there would be a minimal, positive impact on sales tax 
revenues during building. 


Table 4-10. Estimated Sales Tax Revenue on Purchases During Building Period 


State 

Projected Annual 
Expenditures during 
Building <a) 

Sales Tax 
Rate (b) 

(%) 

Projected Annual 
Sales Tax 
Revenue 

Increase in State 
Sales Tax Revenue 

(%) 

New Jersey 

$1,039,740,305 

7 

$72,781,821 

0.622 

Pennsylvania 

$497,797,100 

6 

$29,867,826 

0.198 

(a) Taken from Table 4-7. 

(b) Taken from Table 2-26 of this EIS. 


Property Taxes 

Property taxes that would be paid during the building phase by construction workers that are 
already living in the area are a part of the baseline and not relevant to this analysis. 

In-migrating workers would most likely move into existing houses rather than constructing new 
houses. Thus, the in-migrating workforce would result in a transfer of property taxes instead of 
an increase in local property tax revenues. Based on the above assessments, the review team 
determined there would be minor property tax impacts from construction workers. 

In personal interviews with administrators in Salem County and Lower Alloways Creek 
Township, the review team discovered that no property tax is assessed against construction 
projects in progress. PSEG would not pay property taxes to Salem County until the new plant is 
completed and commercial operations are started (NRC 2012-TN2499). 

From the above assessments, the review team determined there would be minor construction- 
phase property tax impacts in the economic impact area. 

4.4.3.3 Summary of Economic Impacts to the Community 

Based on the information provided by PSEG and the review team’s independent evaluation and 
outreach, the review team concludes that the economic and tax impacts would be SMALL and 
beneficial for the region and the economic impact area, with the exception of MODERATE and 
beneficial economic impacts in Salem County. The increased benefits to Salem County would 
be from the hiring of unemployed direct and indirect workers and from PSEG spending on 
supplies and materials at local shops and vendors. Tax revenue to local jurisdictions would 
accrue through personal income, sales, and property taxes. 

4.4.4 Infrastructure and Community Service Impacts 

This section provides the estimated impacts on infrastructure and community services, including 
transportation, recreation, housing, public services, and education. 

4.4.4 .7 Traffic 

Existing transportation routes would be affected by the transportation of equipment, materials, 
supplies, and the construction workforce to the PSEG Site. The PSEG Site can be accessed 


November 2015 


4-69 


NUREG-2168 







Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


via roads and the Delaware River, and both modes would likely be used during building 
activities. Large components and equipment would be transported by barge via the Delaware 
River. PSEG plans to use the existing HCGS barge facility and construct a new barge facility 
parallel to the one near the PSEG Site (EIS Section 3.3.1). Building-related traffic would 
primarily use the proposed causeway to avoid disruptions to the HCGS and SGS workforce 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). Personal vehicles and trucks on roadways would be the primary 
transportation mode for the construction workforce and would affect the LOS on local roadways, 
particularly during the peak building period. LOS is a measure of time delays at signalized and 
unsignalized intersections ranked from A to F based on delay times (Table 4-11). The lower 
value of each noted LOS range is for unsignalized intersections, and the higher value is for 
signalized intersections (PSEG 2013-TN2525). 


Table 4-11. Level of Service (LOS) Ranges 


Type of Intersection 

LOS 

Delays (Seconds) 

Signalized Intersections 

A 

<10 


B 

>10-20 


C 

>20-35 


D 

>35-55 


E 

>55-80 


F 

>80 

Unsignalized Intersections 

A 

<10 

(Two-Way-Stop-Controlled Intersections) 

B 

>10-15 


C 

>15-25 

Unsignalized Intersections 

D 

>25-35 


E 

>35-50 


F 

>50 


The road system in the economic impact area is described in Section 2.5.2.3. Physical impacts 
on the local transportation network from building are discussed in Section 4.4.1.5. The size of 
the workforce would vary over an estimated 8-year building period from a minimum of 
208 workers to a maximum of 4,100 workers at peak building. During shift changes at peak 
employment, 2,200 vehicles are expected to use local roads. PSEG expects, on average, 

50 vehicles per day to deliver construction materials, equipment, and supplies to the site 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

PSEG conducted a traffic impact analysis (TIA) to determine traffic impacts around the PSEG 
Site (PSEG 2013-TN2525). The TIA analyzed deterioration of LOS on roads and intersections 
in Salem County using the following assumptions: (1) the maximum anticipated construction 
workforce; (2) build-out year of 2021; (3) use of key routes even though other, less-traveled 
routes are available; and (4) traffic load based upon a combination of peak construction, outage 
workforce, maximum operations workforce at the PSEG Site, and baseline background traffic 
(which incorporates current HCGS and SGS employees) (PSEG 2013-TN2525). The analysis 
in the TIA is significantly more conservative than the analysis presented by PSEG in its ER 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). The assumptions are detailed in Table 4-12 and the results in 
Table 4-13. 


NUREG-2168 


4-70 


November 2015 







Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Table 4-12. Traffic Impact Analysis Assumptions 


Type of Commuter 

Amount 

Average Vehicle Occupancy 

Vehicles Per Day 

Construction Workforce (a) 

4,100 

1.3 

3,153 

Outage Workforce (b) 

690 

1 

690 

Operations Workforce (c> 

600 

1 

600 

Heavy Trucks (d) 

355 


355 

Total (e) 

5,745 


4,798 


(a) Assumes vehicles per day. Because there would be three shift changes, on average, there would be 
2,200 vehicles on the road per shift change. 

(b) Assumes a total of 850 outage workers, but 160 are considered nonoutage, non-PSEG personnel and are part of 
the background counts. 

(c) Assumes maximum operations workforce. PSEG estimates actual operations workforce during building would be 
342 workers. 

(d) The traffic impact analysis assumes all trucks used for building would be traveling to the site during peak building. 
This includes trucks used for fill, concrete shipments, etc., that would actually be distributed more evenly 
throughout the building phase. The average number of trucks per day would be closer to 50 throughout the 
building phase. 

(e) HCGS/SGS personnel are considered part of the background counts. 

Sources: PSEG 2013-TN2525; PSEG 2015-TN4280. 


The TIA indicated that five intersections in Salem County would have traffic levels that 
deteriorated below New Jersey acceptable standards (LOS B or better) (PSEG 2013-TN2525). 
The intersections are 

• Grieves Parkway and Chestnut Street (unsignalized), 

• Grieves Parkway and Oak Street (unsignalized), 

• Grieves Parkway and Walnut Street (unsignalized), 

• Front Street and NJ Route 49 (signalized), and 

• Market Street and NJ Route 49 (signalized). 

The TIA indicated the most effective mitigation strategies for these intersections would be the 
following (PSEG 2013-TN2525): 

• changing the three Grieves Parkway intersections from two-way stop sign controls to traffic 
light controls, 

• constructing turn bays at the Grieves Parkway-Oak Street intersection, and 

• adding another turn bay at the Front Street-NJ Route 49 intersection. 

The TIA indicated that, without mitigation measures, LOS would deteriorate. The suggested 
mitigation measures in the TIA may improve the LOS; however, some intersections would 
remain below the New Jersey acceptable standard. There is no room to expand one of the 
intersections, Broadway (Route 49) and Market St (Route 45), and no mitigation measures have 
been suggested. There is no room to expand the Broadway (Route 49) and Front Street 
intersection beyond the current suggested mitigation measure. The proposed causeway would 
separate all traffic to and from the new plant from traffic associated with the existing HCGS and 
SGS operations. The impacts from these two streams of traffic (from HCGS/SGS operations 
and PSEG building activities) would interact when they converge around Salem City 
(PSEG 2013-TN2525). 


November 2015 


4-71 


NUREG-2168 







Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Table 4-13. Impacts on Roadways around PSEG Site during Peak Building 



Intersection Level of Service (LOS) 




Future No 
Build * (a) 

Future with 
Causeway, No 
Mitigation 
Measures (b) (c) 

Future with 
Causeway, with 
Mitigation 
Measures' 3 ’ 

Mitigation 

Intersection 

AM 

PM 

AM 

PM 

AM 

PM 

Measure' 0 ’ 

Intersections with Traffic Signals 

Alloway Creek Neck Rd & B 

B 

B 

A 

B 

B 


Locust Island Rd (Salem- 
Hancocks Bridge Rd) 

Broadway (Route 49) & 

B 

B 

F 

F 

D 

D 

Extra 

Front St 

Broadway (Route 49) & 

B 

C 

C 

D 

C 

E 

Southbound 
Left Turn Bay 

None 

Market St (Route 45) 
Broadway (Route 49) & 

B 

C 

A 

B 

A 

B 


Yorke St/Keasbey St 

Route 49 (Quinton Marlboro) 

A 

A 

A 

B 

B 

B 


& Quinton Alloway Rd 
Broadway (Route 49) & 

B 

C 

A 

B 

A 

B 



Yorke St (Route 658) 

Intersections with Stop Signs 

Grieves Parkway and Walnut 
Street 

Northwest Approach 
Southeast Approach 

Grieves Parkway and 
Chestnut Street 

Northwest Approach 
Southeast Approach 
Grieves Parkway and Oak St 


F 

F 


C 

C 


F 

F 


E 

C 


F 

F 


D 

F 


E 

C 


E 

C 


D 


B 


A Traffic Signal 


D Traffic Signal 


Traffic Signal 


Extra 

Eastbound 
Right Turn 
Bay 


Northwest Approach 
Southeast Approach 


B 

C 


C 

B 


B 

F 


F 

F 


Extra 

Northbound 
Left Turn Bay 


Note: Values for letters A through F are defined in Table 4-11 


Sources: 

(a) Table 23 from the traffic impact analysis (TIA, PSEG 2013-TN2525). 

(b) Table 1-3 from the TIA. 

(c) PSEG 2013-TN2525. 


NUREG-2168 


4-72 


November 2015 









Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


As discussed above, the TIA is based on a combination of peak construction employment, 
outage workforce, operations workforce, and baseline background traffic. The peak 
construction workforce is assumed to occur during construction months 42 through 51. Without 
mitigation, the review team expects the traffic impacts from building would be noticeable and not 
destabilizing, especially for the key intersections identified by the TIA. If the mitigation activities 
recommended in the TIA were undertaken, the review team expects the impact to traffic in the 
region would be minimal, with localized, temporary, noticeable, and adverse impacts around 
Salem. 

4.4.4.2 Recreation 

Recreational resources in the economic impact area may be affected by building activities at the 
PSEG Site. Impacts may include (1) increased user demand associated with the projected 
increase in population as a result of the in-migrating workforce and their families, (2) impaired 
recreational experience associated with the views of the building process and the potential 
cooling tower, and (3) access delays associated with increased traffic on local roadways. 
Increased user demand as a result of the in-migrating population may include increased 
competition for recreational vehicle spaces at campgrounds, which could be used for temporary 
housing for some of the workforce. 

As discussed in Section 4.4.1, there would be some aesthetic impacts at recreational areas that 
have an unobstructed view of the PSEG Site. These areas are typically across the Delaware 
River in Delaware. There would be additional aesthetic impacts from the PSEG EEP viewing 
platforms. The building activities at the PSEG Site would add to the industrial nature of the site. 
Also, people using recreational facilities in Salem County may experience traffic congestion on 
the roads during the morning and afternoon commutes of the building workforce. 

However, because 85 percent of the workforce for building already lives within commuting 
distance of the site, the review team does not expect any stresses to be placed upon the 
capacity of recreational facilities near the PSEG Site. Also, after discussions with local officials, 
the review team does not expect any impacts on recreational trapping in the vicinity of the site 
(NRC 2012-TN2499). 

The economic impact area and the region’s parks and recreational facilities have sufficient 
capacity to accommodate in-migrating workers and their families, and the review team expects 
no impact to trapping near the site. The review team expects the impacts to recreational 
activities in the vicinity to be minimal except for a noticeable but not destabilizing aesthetic 
impact from building activities at the site that cannot be reduced through mitigation and a 
localized, temporary, noticeable but not destabilizing impact for recreational traffic. 

4.4.4.3 Housing 

Section 2.5.2.5 discusses housing information for the economic impact area. According to 
Table 2-30, there are 30,578 vacant housing units available for purchase or rent in all counties 
of the economic impact area, and every county had a significant supply of vacant units. As 
discussed in Section 4.4.2, 617 workers and their families would move into the economic impact 
area from outside the 50-mi. region. The rest of the peak construction workforce is expected to 
come from the region and commute daily to the site, therefore having no impact on the housing 
stock. 


November 2015 


4-73 


NUREG-2168 


Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


The in-migrating workers and families may choose to buy available vacant housing or rent. 
Table 4-14 shows the estimated impact on housing availability for the in-migrating families. 


Table 4-14. Estimated Housing Impacts in the Economic Impact Area 


County 

In-Migrating Families 

Vacant Units 

Percent Change in 
Vacancy Rates 

New Castle 

127 

15,239 

0.83 

Cumberland 

75 

6,174 

1.21 

Gloucester 

109 

6,453 

1.69 

Salem 

306 

2,712 

11.28 

Total 

617 

30,578 

2.02 

Source: Table 2-30 


In addition to the housing stock for owner-occupied housing and rental units, there is also 
sufficient stock of temporary housing in the economic impact area, if workers decide to stay in 
hotels, motels, or campgrounds. Construction workers are more likely to take advantage of the 
temporary housing stock because they are expected to be at the PSEG Site for a relatively short 
time period. Salem County officials also indicate that many outage workers who come from 
outside the region rent out rooms in single-family homes in localities near the site (NRC 2012- 
TN2499). 

Given the large supply of vacant housing relative to the in-migrating workforce during peak 
building employment and the availability of short-term accommodations, the review team 
expects sufficient housing to be available for workers relocating to the area and that there would 
be minimal impacts on the housing supply or prices in the local area. In addition, given the 
large supply of vacant housing, the short-term accommodations, and the temporary nature of 
the construction workforce in the area, the review team does not expect the in-migrating 
workers and families would stimulate new housing. 

Building activities at the PSEG Site could affect housing values in the vicinity of the site. In a 
review of previous studies on the effect of seven nuclear power facilities, including four nuclear 
power plants, on property values in surrounding communities, Bezdek and Wendling 
(Bezdek and Wendling 2006-TN2748) concluded that assessed valuations and median housing 
prices have tended to increase at rates above national and State averages. Clark et al. 

(Clark et al. 1997-TN3000) similarly found that housing prices in the immediate vicinity of two 
nuclear power plants in California were not affected by any negative views of the facilities. 

These findings differ from studies that looked at undesirable facilities, largely related to 
hazardous waste sites and landfills, but also including several studies on power facilities 
(Farber 1998-TN2857) in which property values were negatively affected in the short-term, but 
these effects were moderated over time. Bezdek and Wendling attributed the increase in 
housing prices to benefits provided to the community in terms of employment and tax revenues, 
with surplus tax revenues encouraging other private development in the area. Given the 
findings from the studies discussed above, the review team expects that the impact on housing 
values from building at the PSEG Site would be minor. 


NUREG-2168 


4-74 


November 2015 






Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Based on the information provided by PSEG, interviews with local officials, and its own 
independent review, the review team expects there would be minimal impacts in the economic 
impact area and the region on the price and availability of housing from building at the PSEG 
Site. 

4.4.4.4 Public Services 

This section discusses the impacts on existing water supply, wastewater treatment, police, fire, 
and health care services in the economic impact area. 

Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment Services 

About 85 percent of the project workforce would be local workers who currently reside in the 
region. The majority of these workers would commute from their homes to the project site and 
would not relocate. Therefore, the majority of workers are currently served by the water supply 
and wastewater treatment facilities within the communities in which they reside. 

At peak employment, the review team expects 617 workers and their families to move into the 
economic impact area. This would constitute a total of 1,654 people moving into the economic 
impact area at peak construction. These relocating workers would increase the demand on the 
water supply and wastewater treatment services within the communities where they would 
reside. 

The review team calculated the increase in demand for residential water based on the increase 
in people, using the New Jersey per capita demand for water of 100 gpd (Barnett 2010- 
TN2484). Table 4-15 shows the impact of the increased population on the excess capacity 
within each county of the economic impact area. As shown in Table 4-15, Salem County would 
have a 2.44 percent increase in water demand and the rest of the counties in the economic 
impact area would have less than a four-tenths of 1 percent increase. 

Given the small increase in demand that would result from the in-migrating workers and their 
families compared to existing supply, the review team determined that impacts on water supply 
in the economic impact area would be minimal, and mitigation would not be warranted. 


Table 4-15. Estimated Water Supply Impacts in the Economic Impact Area 


County 

Current Excess 
Capacity 
(Mgd) 

Increase in 
Population 

Estimated Increase in 
Water Demand 

(Mgd) (a) 

Increase in Demand 
on Excess Capacity 
(%) 

New Castle 

^1,000 (b) 

341 

0.0341 

0.003 

Cumberland 

3.995 (c) 

200 

0.02 

0.50 

Gloucester 

24.733 (c) 

293 

0.0293 

0.12 

Salem 

2.646 (c) 

820 

0.082 

3.1 


(a) Increase in population multiplied by 100 gpd. 

(b) New Castle County 2012 Comprehensive Plan Update (NCCDE 2012-TN2326). 

(c) Derived from Table 2-31. 


The review team calculated the increase in demand for wastewater based on the increase in 
people and using the New Jersey per capita demand for wastewater of 75 gpd (SJBC 2012- 


November 2015 


4-75 


NUREG-2168 







Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


TN2485). Table 4-16 shows the impact of the increased population on the excess wastewater 
capacity within each county of the economic impact area. As shown in Table 4-16, Salem 
County would have a 3.0 percent increase in wastewater demand, and the rest of the counties 
in the economic impact area would have less than a four-tenths of 1 percent increase. 


Table 4-16. Estimated Wastewater Supply Impacts in the Economic Impact Area 


County 

Current Excess 
Capacity 
(Mgd) (a) 

Increase in 
Population 

Estimated Increase in 
Wastewater Demand 
(Mgd) (b) 

Percent Increase 
in Demand on 
Excess Capacity 

New Castle 

32.30 

341 

0.026 

0.08 

Cumberland 

8.84 

200 

0.015 

0.17 

Gloucester 

6.13 

293 

0.022 

0.36 

Salem 

2.05 

820 

0.0615 

3.0 


(a) Derived from Table 2-32. 

(b) Increase in population multiplied by 75 gpd. 


Given the small increase in demand for wastewater treatment that would result from the 
in-migrating workers and their families compared to the existing supply, the review team 
determined that impacts on wastewater treatment in the economic impact area would be 
minimal, and mitigation would not be warranted. 

PSEG indicates that a freshwater aquifer that currently supplies HCGS and SGS would also 
supply the construction site with potable and sanitary water, fire protection water, and water for 
other miscellaneous construction uses such as concrete batch plant supply and dust 
suppression. PSEG indicates that it would need about 171,360 gpd onsite (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280). The review team expects the impact of aquifer use on groundwater supply in the 
economic impact area would be negligible and would be subject to permit requirements. 

Further analysis of groundwater withdrawal during construction is in Section 4.2 of this EIS. 
PSEG also has a wastewater treatment facility on the site for the HCGS and SGS, but it was 
only sized for the demand at HCGS and SGS. PSEG would install a new sewage treatment 
facility or expand the existing one to meet needs for the PSEG building and operations 
workforce. There would be no offsite treatment of wastewater from the new plant (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280). Therefore, there would be no impact on wastewater facilities from the PSEG Site. 

The review team concluded from the information provided by PSEG, interviews with local 
planners and officials, and its own independent evaluation that building at the PSEG Site would 
have minimal impacts on the local water supply and on wastewater treatment facilities and no 
mitigation would be warranted. 

Police, Fire, and Health Care Services 

The building workforce at the PSEG Site would increase the demand on police, fire, and health 
care services within the communities where workers reside and at the PSEG Site. 

About 85 percent of the project workforce would be local workers who currently reside in the 
region. The majority of these workers would commute from their homes to the project site and 
would not relocate. Therefore, the existing police, fire, and health care services in the 50-mi 


NUREG-2168 


4-76 


November 2015 







Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


region already serve the majority of the proposed project's construction workers within the 
communities in which they reside. 

At peak employment, the review team expects 617 workers and their families to move into 
the economic impact area for a total of 1.654 people (workers plus their families). These 
in-migrating workers and their families would increase the demand on the police, fire, and health 
care services within the communities where they would reside. 

No county in the economic impact area, except Salem County, has a projected population 
increase at peak employment of more than 1 percent. Salem County’s projected increase is 
1.22 percent. In discussion with local officials of the localities closest to the site (Lower 
Alloways Creek Township. Elsinboro Township, and Salem County), the review team found that 
such minimal increases in population should not have any noticeable effect on the performance 
of police, fire, and health care services at peak employment in the economic impact area 
(NRC 2012-TN2499). 

Locally, Elsinboro Township receives police services from a contract with Lower Alloways Creek 
Township and its fire protection and emergency medical services are provided by volunteer 
forces. Lower Alloways Creek Township has its own police force and volunteer fire and 
emergency medical services forces. Salem City has its own police force and fire/emergency 
medical services as well. Salem County also has a sheriffs office and is patrolled by State 
police. All hospitals in the area are under capacity (NRC 2012-TN2499). Because of their 
proximity to the site, these three jurisdictions in Salem County would receive the greatest 
impacts from construction worker injuries or accidents on the roads leading to the site and at the 
site. These personnel may encounter traffic congestion on local roadways when responding to 
calls when the building workforce is commuting to the site, especially during peak employment 
periods. However, the area around the PSEG Site is sparsely populated, so there would not be 
a high demand for these personnel near the site. In addition, measures to mitigate traffic delays 
have been recommended and are discussed in Section 4.4.4.1 of this EIS; these could reduce 
the impacts on emergency responders as well as on members of the general public using local 
roadways. 

Based on discussions with local officials and its own independent analysis, the review team 
expects a minimal impact on police, fire, and health care services from building activities at the 
PSEG Site, and no mitigation would be warranted. 

4.4.4.5 Education 

The building workforce at the PSEG Site would increase the demand for educational services 
within the communities where workers reside. About 85 percent of the project workforce would 
be local workers who currently reside in the region. The majority of these workers would 
commute from their homes to the project site and would not relocate. Therefore, the majority of 
workers are currently served by the educational services within the communities where they 
reside. 

As shown in Table 4-17, during peak building there would be an estimated increase of 
283 students in the economic impact area. The review team determined this to be a small 


November 2015 


4-77 


NUREG-2168 



Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


increase compared to the existing rolls in the economic impact area (more than 
160,000 students, as shown in Table 2-34). No county in the economic impact area would 
experience a noticeable increase in the number of students per teacher. The greatest increase 
in student-to-teacher ratios would be in Salem County, where the increase would be slightly 
greater than one-tenth of a student per teacher. Some schools may receive higher numbers of 
children during peak employment because of amenities and the school choice programs 
available in New Jersey and Delaware. 


Table 4-17. Estimated Number of School-Aged Children Associated with In-Migrating 
Workforce Associated with Building at the PSEG Site 


County 

Estimated 
Increase in 
Population 

Percent of 
Population 
Between 5 and 

18 Years Old< a > 

Estimated 
Increase in 
School-Age 
Children 

Student/Teacher 
Ratio Existing 
Conditions (b)(c) 

Student/Teacher 
Ratio During 
Peak Building (c) 

New Castle 

341 

16.5 

56 

15.24 

15.25 

Cumberland 

200 

17.1 

34 

12.02 

12.03 

Gloucester 

293 

18.0 

52 

12.93 

12.94 

Salem 

820 

17.2 

141 

11.24 

11.37 

Total 

1,654 

17.1 

283 

13.58 

13.60 

(a) U.S. Census Bureau (USCB 2009-TN2344). 

(b) Derived from Table 2-34. 

(c) Public school estimates only. 


Because of these estimates, the public choice programs, and discussions with local officials, the 
review team foresees minimal impacts on local school districts and schools in the economic 
impact area, and no mitigation would be warranted. 

4.4.4.6 Summary of Community Service and Infrastructure Impacts 

Based on the information provided by PSEG and the review team’s independent evaluation and 
outreach, the review team concludes that the building-related impacts to all infrastructure and 
community services would be SMALL for the region and the economic impact area, with the 
exception of recreation-related traffic and aesthetics near the PSEG Site. The review team 
expects MODERATE, temporary adverse impacts on traffic on local recreation routes near the 
PSEG Site. These impacts could be reduced by further planning and mitigation measures 
similar to those discussed in the TIA. The review team expects MODERATE adverse impacts 
to local recreational resources due to impacts on “viewsheds” and noticeable traffic impacts. 

For aesthetic impacts to recreational activities, the review team determined that additional 
mitigation beyond what has already been proposed by PSEG would not reduce the expected 
impact below MODERATE. 

Based on the above information, the review team determined the impacts of NRC-authorized 
construction activities on infrastructure and community services for MODERATE impact 
categories (traffic and recreation-related aesthetics) are integrally related to the period of 
maximum construction workforce and therefore would also be MODERATE. 


NUREG-2168 


4-78 


November 2015 






Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


4.4.5 Summary of Socioeconomic Impacts 

The review team has assessed the activities related to building a new nuclear power plant at the 
PSEG Site and the potential socioeconomic impacts in the region and economic impact area. 
The above discussion includes scenarios with and without mitigation. However, given that the 
applicant identified specific mitigation actions for each category, which are consistent with 
industry standards or required by local ordinances and which would reduce negative impacts, 
the review team finds it reasonable to assume for this summary that those mitigating actions 
would be successfully implemented. Therefore, for clarity, the summary discussion below refers 
strictly to the expected level of impacts following the implementation of applicant-identified 
mitigation. 

Physical impacts on workers and the general public would include those related to noise levels, 
air quality, existing buildings, transportation resources, and aesthetics. The review team 
concludes most physical impacts from building at the PSEG Site would be SMALL, with the 
exception of MODERATE impacts to local roadways and aesthetics. Physical impacts to local 
roadways would be manageable with mitigation required by local ordinances. Aesthetic impacts 
could not be mitigated. 

On the basis of information supplied by PSEG and the review team interviews conducted with 
public officials, the review team concludes that impacts on the demographics of the region and 
economic impact area from building at the PSEG Site would be SMALL. Economic impacts 
throughout the region and economic impact area would be SMALL and beneficial, with the 
exception of MODERATE and beneficial economic impacts to Salem County. Tax impacts 
would be SMALL and beneficial throughout the region and economic impact area. 

Infrastructure and community services impacts span issues associated with traffic, recreation, 
housing, public services, and education. Impacts from building at the PSEG Site on housing, 
public services, and education would be SMALL. Traffic impacts are expected to be localized, 
short-term, MODERATE, and adverse. These impacts could be reduced by further planning 
and mitigation measures similar to those discussed in the TIA. Recreational impacts would be 
MODERATE and adverse due to impacts to roadways around recreational resources and on 
viewsheds from the increased industrial character of the PSEG Site. 

4.5 Environmental Justice Impacts 

The review team evaluated whether minority or low-income populations would experience 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects from building a new 
nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site. To perform this assessment, the review team 
(1) identified (through U.S. Census Bureau and American Community Survey demographic 
data, the PSEG ER [PSEG 2015-TN4280], and site visit assessments) minority and low-income 
populations of interest; (2) identified all potentially significant pathways for human health, 
environmental, physical, and socioeconomic effects on those identified populations of interest; 
and (3) determined whether the characteristics of the pathway or special circumstances of the 
minority or low-income populations would result in a disproportionately high and adverse impact. 


November 2015 


4-79 


NUREG-2168 


Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


To perform this assessment, the review team followed the method described in Section 2.6.1. 

In the context of building activities at the PSEG Site, the review team considered the questions 
outlined in Section 2.6.1. For all three health-related questions, the review team determined 
that the level of environmental emissions projected is well below the protection levels 
established by the NRC and EPA regulations and would not impose a disproportionate and 
adverse effect on minority or low-income populations. 

4.5.1 Health Impacts 

Section 4.8 assesses the nonradiological health effects for construction workers and the local 
population from fugitive dust, noise, occupational injuries, and transport of materials and 
personnel. In Section 4.8, the review team concludes that nonradiological health impacts would 
be SMALL. The review team’s investigation and outreach did not identify any unique 
characteristics or practices among minority or low-income populations that might result in 
disproportionately high and adverse nonradiological health effects. 

Section 4.9 assesses the radiological doses to construction workers and the local population 
and concludes that the doses would be within the NRC and EPA dose standards. Section 4.9 
concludes that radiological health impacts on the construction workforce at the PSEG Site 
would be SMALL. In addition, there would be no radioactive material on the construction site 
except for very small sources such as those commonly used by radiographers; therefore, there 
would be no radiation exposure to members of the public from building at the PSEG Site. 

Based on this information, the review team concludes that there would be no disproportionately 
high and adverse impact on low-income or minority populations. 

4.5.2 Physical and Environmental Impacts 

For the physical and environmental considerations described in Section 2.6.1, the review team 
determined through literature searches and consultations that (1) the impacts on the natural or 
physical environment would not significantly or adversely affect a particular group, (2) no 
minority or low-income population would experience an adverse impact that would appreciably 
exceed or be likely to appreciably exceed those of the general population, and (3) the 
environmental effects would not occur in groups affected by cumulative or multiple adverse 
exposure from environmental hazards. 

The review team determined that the physical and environmental impacts from onsite building 
activities at the PSEG Site would attenuate rapidly with distance, intervening foliage, and 
terrain. There are four primary exposure media in the environment: soil, water, air, and noise. 
The following sections discuss each of these pathways in greater detail. 

4.5.2 .7 Soil 

Building activities on the PSEG Site represent the largest source of soil-related environmental 
impacts. The site is well-defined, and access is restricted. Soil-disturbing activities are 
localized on the site, sufficiently distant from surrounding populations, and have little ability to 
migrate, resulting in no noticeable offsite impacts. Soil migration would be minimized by 
adherence to regulations, permits, and the use of BMPs. 


NUREG-2168 


4-80 


November 2015 


Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


4.5.2.2 Water 

Water-related environmental impacts from erosion-related degradation of surface water and the 
introduction of anthropogenic substances into surface and groundwater would occur, but the 
impacts would be mitigated through adherence to permit requirements and BMPs. Increased 
water turbidity during dredging activities could affect nearshore water quality, but the effect 
would be minimized through adherence to permit requirements and BMPs. Consumptive use of 
surface water for building activities would also occur but would have only a minimal effect 
because the water supply is from the Delaware River. The water-related impacts of building 
activities associated with the proposed action would be of limited magnitude, localized, and 
temporary. 

4.5.2.3 Air 

Air emissions are expected from increased vehicle traffic, construction equipment, and fugitive 
dust from building activities. Emissions from vehicles and construction equipment would be 
unavoidable but would be temporary and minor in nature and subject to management under 
State and Federal air regulations and permits. Furthermore, because of the distance between 
the site and the closest minority or low-income population, the review team did not identify any 
disproportionately high and adverse impacts from air-related pathways. 

4.5.2.4 Noise 

Noise would result from clearing; moving earth; preparing foundations; pile-driving; concrete 
mixing and pouring; erecting steel structures; and various stages of facility equipment 
fabrication, assembly, and installation. PSEG would, however, use standard noise control 
measures for construction equipment, limit the types of building activities during nighttime and 
weekend hours, notify all potentially affected neighbors of planned activities, and establish a 
construction-noise monitoring program. The review team determined that noise impacts on the 
public would be temporary and would not be significant; therefore, the review team determined 
there would be no disproportionately high and adverse impact on any minority or low-income 
population from noise. 

4.5.2.5 Summary of Physical and Environmental Impacts 

The review team’s investigation and outreach did not identify any unique characteristics or 
practices among minority or low-income populations that might result in physical or 
environmental impacts on them that were different from those on the general population. 

As discussed in Section 2.6, most of the census block groups classified as minority or low- 
income are located across the Delaware River in New Castle County. The closest block groups 
to the site are about 8 mi north of the PSEG Site in the City of Salem. The census block groups 
would not be affected by any physical or environmental impacts because of the distance from 
the site. 

On the basis of information provided by PSEG and the review team’s independent review, the 
review team found no pathways from soil, water, air, and noise that would lead to 
disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority or low-income populations. 


November 2015 


4-81 


NUREG-2168 


Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


4.5.3 Socioeconomic Impacts 

Socioeconomic impacts (discussed in Section 4.4) were reviewed to evaluate whether there 
would be any building activities that could have a disproportionately high and adverse impact on 
minority or low-income populations. Except for effects on traffic and recreational resources, all 
adverse socioeconomic impacts associated with building activities at the PSEG Site are 
expected to be SMALL for the general public. The review team found that there could be 
adverse MODERATE impacts on traffic and recreational resources in Salem County; however, 
these impacts are not expected to disproportionately affect the nearby low-income and minority 
populations. 

4.5.4 Subsistence and Special Conditions 

The NRC method for environmental justice assessments includes assessment of populations 
with unique characteristics such as minority communities exceptionally dependent on 
subsistence resources or identifiable in compact locations, such as Native American settlements 
or high-density concentrations of minority populations. 

4.5.4 .7 Subsistence 

Access to the PSEG Site is restricted; such restricted access reduces any impact on plant¬ 
gathering, hunting, and fishing activities at the site. PSEG and the review team independently 
interviewed community leaders in Salem County and New Castle County and found that no 
such practices were identified in the vicinity of the PSEG Site nor any documented subsistence 
fishing in the Delaware River. As discussed, in Section 2.6.3, hunting, plant-gathering, and 
fishing are all done for recreational purposes. 

From the information provided by PSEG, interviews with local officials, and the review team’s 
independent evaluation, the review team concludes that there would be no building-related 
disproportionately high and adverse impacts on subsistence activities on minority or low-income 
populations. 

4.5.4.2 High-Density Communities 

As discussed in Section 2.6.3, there are no high-density communities in Elsinboro and Lower 
Alloways Creek Townships. There are two public housing projects in Penns Grove and three in 
Salem City. From its own independent evaluation and interaction with local officials, the review 
team does not predict any impacts to the communities in Penns Grove from building activities at 
the PSEG Site. However, the three Salem City communities would notice an adverse effect 
from construction traffic similar to the rest of the area around Salem City. The review team, 
after discussions with local officials from Salem, does not believe the impact would 
disproportionately affect those communities because no pathways exist. The impacts would be 
temporary in nature and PSEG has provided suggested mitigation strategies to limit any 
impacts. 


NUREG-2168 


4-82 


November 2015 


Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


4.5.5 Migrant Labor 

As discussed in Section 2.6.4, the main migrant populations closest to the site are the HCGS 
and SGS outage workforces. There are farm workers in the economic impact area as well, but 
they are located closer to or in Gloucester and Cumberland Counties and not near the PSEG 
Site. Therefore, from the information provided by PSEG, interviews with local officials, and the 
review team's independent evaluation, the review team concludes that there would be no 
disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority or low-income migrant laborers. 

4.5.6 Summary of Environmental Justice Impacts 

The review team evaluated the impacts of building activities at the PSEG Site on environmental 
justice populations. The review team did not identify any potential environmental pathways by 
which the identified minority or low-income populations in the 50-mi region and economic impact 
area would likely experience disproportionately high and adverse human health, environmental, 
physical, or socioeconomic effects as a result of building activities. 

Based on the preceding analysis, and because the NRC-authorized construction activities 
represent only a part of the analyzed activities, the review team concludes that there would be 
no disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations 
resulting from building activities at the PSEG Site. 

4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources 

NEPA (42 USC 4321 et seq. -TN661) requires Federal agencies to take into account the 
potential effects of their undertakings on the cultural environment, which includes archaeological 
sites, historic buildings, and traditional places important to a community. The National Historic 
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA, 54 USC 300101 et seq. -TN4157), also requires 
Federal agencies to consider impacts to those resources if they are eligible for listing on the 
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Such resources are referred to as “historic 
properties” in NHPA. As outlined in 36 CFR 800.8 (TN513), “Coordination with the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969”, the NRC is coordinating compliance with Section 106 of 
NHPA in fulfilling its responsibilities under NEPA. 

Building a new nuclear power plant could affect either known or undiscovered historic and 
cultural resources. In accordance with the provisions of NHPA and NEPA, the NRC and the 
USACE, cooperating Federal agencies, are required to make a reasonable and good faith effort 
to identify historic properties and cultural resources in the areas of potential effect (APEs) and 
permit areas and, if present, determine whether any significant impacts are likely. Identification 
is to occur in consultation with the appropriate state historic preservation officer, Native 
American tribes, interested parties, and the public. If significant impacts are possible, efforts 
should be made to mitigate them. 

Because the NRC and the USACE each have separate regulatory authority, no one agency is 
responsible for all aspects of the project. The NRC is responsible for effects resulting from the 
construction and operation of a new nuclear power plant. Other aspects of the project, such as 
development of the causeway and dredging for a barge facility, are the responsibility of the 


November 2015 


4-83 


NUREG-2168 


Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


USACE. Cultural resources that could be affected by building a new nuclear power plant could 
include archaeological sites, historic resources in the vicinity of the plant, and traditional cultural 
properties of significance to Native Americans. 

The NRC is responsible for considering potential effects on historic and cultural resources on 
Artificial Island and any potential visual impacts resulting from the construction and operation of 
a new nuclear power plant. Artificial Island is a human-made island and therefore has no 
potential for intact archaeological remains; however, construction of a new nuclear power plant 
could visually impact historic properties. For a description of the efforts undertaken to identify 
historic and cultural resources in the vicinity of the PSEG Site, see Section 2.7. Six historic 
properties listed in the NRHP in New Jersey and 18 historic properties in Delaware are visible in 
the 4.9-mi APE from the project area. Two additional properties with the potential for listing 
were noted in New Jersey, and one property with the potential for listing was found in Delaware 
(AKRF 2012-TN2876). Analyses conducted on behalf of PSEG examined the visual effect of 
the construction of a new nuclear power plant (MACTEC 2009-TN2543; AKRF 2012-TN2876). 
Based on a revised New Jersey State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) opinion received on 
December 4, 2014 (NJDEP 2014-TN4288), additional research was undertaken in 2015 (see 
Section 2.7.4 for a description of the 2015 efforts). Consultation conducted from January to 
June 2015 found that two new natural draft cooling towers would be visible from the Abel and 
Mary Nicholson House (127 Fort Elfsborg-Hancock Bridge Road, Elsinboro Township), the 
property at 349 Fort Elfsborg-Hancock Bridge Road, and the property at 116 Mason Point Road 
(AKRF 2015-TN4287). In the draft EIS, because the location of the PSEG Site is adjacent to 
the existing SGS and HCGS units, the introduction of two proposed NDCTs would be consistent 
with the existing landscape. Therefore, the NRC determined that the visual impacts from a new 
nuclear power plant would not have an adverse effect on historic properties. The Delaware 
SHPO concurred that no adverse effects to historic resources under its jurisdiction would result 
from the project (DDHCA 2013-TN2639) (see Appendix C). The New Jersey SHPO concurred 
that no adverse effects would result from the ESP in 2013 (NJDEP 2013-TN2870). 

However in December 2014, the New Jersey SHPO issued a new opinion of adverse effect to 
the Abel and Mary Nicholson House National Historic Landmark (NHL) (NJDEP 2014-TN4288). 
After additional investigation, the NRC determined in June 2015 that the introduction of two 
proposed NDCTs would result in an indirect visual adverse effect to the Abel and Mary 
Nicholson House NHL (127 Fort Elfsborg-Hancock Bridge Road, Elsinboro Township), and the 
historic properties at 349 Fort Elfsborg-Hancock Bridge Road, and at 116 Mason Point Road 
(NRC 2015-TN4290). The effect from the visual intrusion of two proposed NDCTs on historic 
properties would be variable and influenced by climatic conditions. The effect determination for 
Delaware remains unchanged (no historic properties affected). 

The USACE is responsible for considering the effects on historic and cultural resources of 
dredging for a barge facility, water intakes for a new nuclear power plant, and construction of a 
causeway and the Money Island access road. A Phase I assessment of submerged resources 
off of Artificial Island identified three possible resources (PCI 2009-TN2544). A Phase II survey 
was performed to clarify the nature of the submerged resources, and they were determined by 
the contractors conducting the survey to be ineligible for NRHP listing (PCI 2013-TN2749). The 
New Jersey SHPO concurred with the findings of the Phase II study that no historic properties 


NUREG-2168 


4-84 


November 2015 




Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


would be affected by the required dredging (NJDEP 2013-TN2742). The USACE has yet to 
make its eligibility and effects determinations concerning the submerged resources. 

An archaeological survey completed for the proposed causeway from the PSEG Site to Money 
Island Road identified six archaeological sites (28SA179, 28SA180, 28SA181, 28SA182, 
28SA183, and 28SA186). All six sites were recommended as potentially eligible for NRHP 
listing by the contractors performing the survey (PSEG 2009-TN2550). The New Jersey SHPO 
indicated that additional information on these resources was necessary and recommended that 
a Phase II survey was needed. PSEG conducted the Phase II survey, and its contractor 
recommended that the sites were not eligible for NRHP listing. It was the contractor’s opinion 
that the sites do not possess sufficient integrity or significance to be considered individually 
eligible for NRHP or State listing or to be considered eligible as contributing resources to either 
the Elsinboro-Lower Alloways Creek Rural Agricultural District or the John Mason House 
(AKRF 2013-TN2653). The New Jersey SHPO did not concur with the assessment and has 
requested that additional research be conducted (NJDEP 2013-TN2742). The USACE has yet 
to make its eligibility and effects determinations concerning the six sites within the permit area 
for the proposed causeway. 

Several Native American tribes were contacted to determine whether any resources of concern 
to them were in the project area. No Native American tribes have responded to the NRC, so 
there is currently no indication that construction of a new nuclear power plant or causeway 
would result in adverse effects to resources of concern to the tribes. Consultation with the tribes 
will continue throughout the NEPA process (42 USC 4321 et seq. -TN661). No traditional 
cultural properties have been identified in the project area. For a description of the consultation 
efforts under Section 106 for the project, see Section 2.7.3. The USACE consultation effort is 
ongoing. 

As discussed above, impacts to historic and cultural resources due to building activities are 
expected to occur in New Jersey where three historic properties would be visually affected 
including a NHL. No adverse effects are expected to archaeological resources from NRC- 
authorized construction because Artificial is a man-made island. Additionally, the applicant has 
a procedure for inadvertent discovery of archaeological sites during construction (PSEG 2012- 
TN2557). For the purposes of the review team’s NEPA analysis, based on (1) no known 
significant resources on Artificial Island, (2) the review team’s cultural resource analysis, (3) 
PSEG's procedure for inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources, and (4) consultation 
with the New Jersey and Delaware SHPOs, the review team concludes that a potential indirect 
visual adverse effect could occur in New Jersey. Because the impact is indirect and can be 
mitigated, but may be noticeable depending on the type of cooling towers selected, the overall 
NEPA impacts on historic and cultural resources are expected to be SMALL to MODERATE. 
Even though the proposed project is over 4 mi from the NHL and other historic properties, and 
the visibility of the NDCTs is dependent on climatic conditions that could obscure them (see 
Figure 2-30 and 2-31 in Section 2-7), the visual impact would remain noticeable. If mechanical 
draft cooling towers were selected as the cooling system, there would be no impact to historic 
properties. Potential mitigation strategies were discussed during consultation and could include 
compensatory or off-setting measures (NRC 2015-TN4368); however, the parties agreed to 
defer development of specific mitigation to the COL application stage. A draft Memorandum of 
Agreement (MOA) was developed for the ESP by the agencies and consulting parties, which 


November 2015 


4-85 


NUREG-2168 





Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


identifies the process for developing the specific mitigation measures at the COL stage. On 
September 4, 2015, the draft MOA was issued for public comment in the Federal Register (80 
FR 53579-TN4344). Section 106 consultation for the NRC’s portion of the proposed project was 
completed by the execution of the MOA on October 14, 2015 (NRC 2015-TN4377). A copy of 
the final MOA is provided within Appendix F. Consultations between the USACE and the New 
Jersey SHPO on the USACE permit area for the ESP are ongoing. This consultation process 
would be concluded prior to the issuance of any Department of the Army permit. The New 
Jersey SHPO has concurred with the findings from PSEG’s contractor concerning no effects on 
submerged resources; however, the USACE has yet to issue its finding. 

4.7 Meteorological and Air-Quality Impacts 

Section 2.9 discusses the meteorological characteristics and air quality at and around the PSEG 
Site. The primary impacts on local meteorology and air quality of constructing a new nuclear 
power plant at the PSEG Site would be from dust generated by land-clearing and building 
activities, emissions from equipment and machinery, concrete batch plant operations, and 
emissions from vehicles used to transport workers and deliver materials to and from the site. 
Air-quality impacts directly associated with these activities are described in Section 4.7.1; air- 
quality impacts associated with transportation of construction workers are addressed in 
Section 4.7.2. 

4.7.1 Construction and Preconstruction Activities 

Preconstruction and construction activities at the PSEG Site would result in temporary impacts 
to local air quality. Equipment and vehicle emissions from these activities would contain carbon 
monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and oxides of sulfur to a 
lesser extent. Fugitive dust particle emissions (such as PMio and PM2.5; that is, particulate 
matter with a mean aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 10 and 2.5 pm, respectively) 
would be generated during windy periods, earthmoving, concrete batch plant operation, and 
movement of vehicular traffic over recently disturbed or cleared areas. The site grade would be 
made uniform to ensure access to all areas of the construction site. The crosshatched areas 
depicted on the PSEG Site Utilization Plan (Figure 2-2) illustrate the areas to be cleared, 
grubbed, and graded. Painting, coating, and similar operations would also generate emissions 
of VOCs. Additionally, construction of the proposed causeway and roadway improvements may 
generate fugitive dust and equipment emissions. 

As discussed in Section 2.9.2, with the exception of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, air quality in 
Salem County is in attainment with or better than national standards for criteria pollutants. 

Salem County is in nonattainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS; therefore, in accordance with 
Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401 et seq. -TN1141), the General Conformity 
Rule (40 CFR Part 93 Subpart B [TN2495]) applies. The NRC, the USACE, and the USCG 
must analyze the proposed permit action for conformity applicability pursuant to 40 CFR 
93.150(a). As discussed in Section 1.1, the ESP application and review processes make it 
possible to evaluate and resolve safety and environmental issues related to siting before the 
applicant makes a large commitment of resources, but it does not authorize construction and 
operation of a nuclear power plant. The Federal action of issuing an ESP for the PSEG Site 
does not directly or indirectly cause any emissions according to the definitions in 40 CFR 93.152 


NUREG-2168 


4-86 


November 2015 






Construction impacts at the Proposed Site 


(TN1495), and therefore, an applicability analysis and potential conformity determination will not 
be performed at this time. However, the preliminary activities listed in 10 CFR 50.10(a)(2) 
(TN249), which do not fall under NRC regulatory authority, could occur irrespective of the ESP 
permit issuance. Compliance with 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart B (TN2495), will be demonstrated 
when an application for a CP or COL is submitted to the NRC. 

Authorizations for construction and preconstruction activities are listed in Table 1.3-2 of the ER 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). The State of New Jersey regulates air quality through the New Jersey 
Administrative Code (NJAC), Title 7, Environmental Protection, Chapter 27, "Air Pollution 
Control (NJAC 7:27-TN3290). The applicant must follow New Jersey reporting requirements 
for air emissions that would be generated during construction and preconstruction activities. 
Additionally, the applicant plans to implement a fugitive dust control program and plans for 
proper maintenance of construction equipment (PSEG 2015-TN4280). A dust control program 
would identify specific mitigation measures to control fugitive dust. Section 4.4.1.3 of the ER 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280) lists mitigation measures specifically related to dust control that may be 
used, including the following: 

• stabilizing construction roads and spoil piles, 

• limiting speeds on unpaved construction roads, 

• periodically watering unpaved construction roads, 

• performing housekeeping (e.g., removing dirt spilled onto paved roads), 

• covering haul trucks when loaded or unloaded, 

• minimizing material handling (e.g., drop heights, double handling), 

• phased grading to minimize the area of disturbed soils, and 

• revegetating road medians and slopes. 

PSEG would create emission-specific strategies and measures to comply with the NAAQS 
(40 CFR Part 50-TN1089) and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
(40 CFR Part 63-TN1403), to which stationary sources such as generators are subject. 

Construction and preconstruction activities, such as operation of on-road construction vehicles, 
commuter vehicles, nonroad construction equipment, and marine engines, would also result in 
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, principally carbon dioxide (CO 2 ). Assuming a 7-year period 
for construction and preconstruction activities and typical construction practices, the review 
team estimates that the total construction/preconstruction equipment GHG emissions footprint 
for building a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site would be on the order of 78,000 MT 
CO 2 equivalent (C 026) 1 (an emission rate of about 11,100 MT C02e annually, averaged over 
the period of construction/preconstruction). This amounts to about 0.008 percent of the total 
estimated GHG emissions in New Jersey (143,400,000 MT of gross 2 C02e) in 2010 
(NJDEP 2008-TN2776). This also equates to about 0.0002 percent of the total U.S. annual 
emission rate of 6.7 billion MT C02e in 2011 (EPA 2013-TN2815). Appendix K of this EIS 


(1) A measure to compare the emissions from various greenhouse gases (GHGs) on the basis of their 
global warming potential, defined as the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of the GHG to that of 
one unit mass of CO 2 over a specific time period. 

(2) Excluding GHG emissions removed due to forestry and other land uses. 


November 2015 


4-87 


NUREG-2168 







Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


provides the details of the review team estimate for a reference 1,000-MW(e) nuclear power 
reactor. 

Based on its assessment of the relatively small construction equipment GHG footprint compared 
to total New Jersey and U.S. annual GHG emissions, the review team concludes that the 
atmospheric impacts of GHGs from construction and preconstruction activities would not be 
noticeable and additional mitigation would not be warranted. 

In general, emissions from construction and preconstruction activities for building a nuclear 
power plant, including GHG emissions, would vary based on the level and duration of a specific 
activity, but the overall impact is expected to be temporary and limited in magnitude. PSEG 
asserted in ER Section 4.4.1.3 (PSEG 2015-TN4280) that emission-specific strategies and 
measures would be developed and implemented to ensure compliance with the applicable 
regulatory limits defined by the National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(40 CFR Part 50-TN1089). Additionally, a dust control program would be implemented. 
Considering the information provided by PSEG and its stated intent to develop and implement 
strategies to reduce emissions to ensure compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations, 
the review team concludes that the impacts on air quality from PSEG Site construction and 
preconstruction activities would not be noticeable because appropriate mitigation measures 
would be adopted. 

4.7.2 Traffic (Emissions) 

During building activities, about 3,150 commuter vehicles and 50 additional trucks and other 
vehicles would pass through Elsinboro and Lower Alloways Creek Townships and Salem City 
daily. This traffic would include the passenger cars and light duty trucks of the preconstruction 
and construction workforce and truck traffic for delivery of construction materials and heavy 
equipment used to support development (e.g., excavators, bulldozers, heavy haul trucks, 
cranes). Potential effects of this daily traffic are considered as indirect impacts associated with 
onsite building activities. Workers may carpool or shuttle to the site, thereby minimizing the 
number of workers using the causeway and other roadways. Additionally, the existing HCGS 
barge slip and the proposed parallel barge facility would be used to deliver larger components 
(constructed at offsite facilities) and construction materials to the site. Because the workforce 
would be divided into three shifts, the increased traffic would be distributed over the day, with 
only periodic and short-term increases at shift changes. As a result, increases in emission levels 
are expected to be minimal and temporary, even when combined with the workforce for the 
existing HCGS and SGS, and would have a minimal impact on air quality from criteria pollutants. 

The workforce associated with PSEG Site building activities would primarily use the proposed 
causeway to avoid disruption to the HCGS and SGS operations workforce (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280). The TIA (PSEG 2013-TN2525) indicates that traffic from Salem City to the proposed 
causeway would be greatest during shift changes. The receiving roadways are likely to 
experience a significant increase in traffic during shift changes that could lead to periods of 
congestion and decreased air quality. However, the overall impact caused by increased traffic 
volume and congestion would be localized and temporary. In the ER, PSEG identifies 
mitigation measures that would be developed before building activities begin. These traffic 
mitigation measures would reduce the impact of increased traffic on air quality. Potential 


NUREG-2168 


4-88 


November 2015 


Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


mitigation measures involve changes to intersections to reduce congestion. After building 
activities are complete, the measures implemented would remain in place and continue to 
reduce congestion. 

Workforce transportation would also result in GHG emissions, principally CO ; . Assuming a 
7-year period for construction and preconstruction activities and a typical workforce, the review 
team estimates that the total workforce GHG emission footprint for building a new nuclear 
power plant at the PSEG Site would be on the order of 86,000 MT C02e (an emission rate of 
about 12.300 MT C02e annually, averaged over the period of construction/preconstruction). 

This amounts to about 0.009 percent of the total estimated GHG emissions in New Jersey 
(143,400,000 MT of gross CC> 2 e) in 2010 (NJDEP 2008-TN2776). This also equates to about 
0.0002 percent of the total U.S. annual emission rate of 6.7 billion MT C0 2 e in 2011 
(EPA 2013-TN2815). Appendix K of this EIS provides the details of the review team estimate 
for a reference 1,000-MW(e) nuclear power reactor. 

Based on its assessment of the relatively small construction and preconstruction workforce 
GHG footprint compared to the New Jersey and U.S. annual GHG emissions, the review team 
concludes that the atmospheric impacts of GHGs from workforce transportation would not be 
noticeable, and additional mitigation would not be warranted. Based on the limited increase in 
local vehicle traffic and the applicant's stated intent to develop mitigation measures listed in the 
PSEG ER (PSEG 2015-TN4280), the review team concludes that the impact on the air quality 
related to construction and preconstruction activities, including the effect of GHG emissions, 
would be temporary and would not be noticeable if the applicant's proposed mitigation 
measures are adopted. 

4.7.3 Summary 

The review team evaluated potential impacts on air quality associated with criteria pollutants 
and GHG emissions during PSEG Site development activities. The review team determined 
that the impacts would be minimal. On this basis, the review team concludes that the impacts 
on air quality from emissions of criteria pollutants and GHGs during PSEG Site development 
would be SMALL and that no further mitigation would be warranted. Because the 
NRC-authorized construction activities represent only a portion of the analyzed activities, the 
NRC staff concludes that the air-quality impacts of the NRC-authorized construction activities 
would also be SMALL, and no further mitigation beyond those mitigation measures that the 
applicant has committed to implement would be warranted. 

4.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts 

Nonradiological health impacts on the public and workers from preconstruction and construction 
activities include exposure to dust and vehicle exhaust, occupational injuries, noise, and risk 
from the transport of materials and personnel to and from the site. PSEG discussed these 
impacts qualitatively in Sections 4.4.1 and 4.6 of the ER (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

The area around the PSEG Site is predominantly rural, and the two counties located within a 
6-mi radius are New Castle, Delaware, and Salem, New Jersey (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Most of 
the land surrounding the site is owned by the Federal government and the State of New Jersey, 
and three major land uses (agriculture, open water, and wetlands) account for 94 percent of 


November 2015 


4-89 


NUREG-2168 


Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


land use within this 6-mile vicinity. About 42,000 people reside within 10 mi of the PSEG Site— 
the majority within 5 to 10 mi of the PSEG Site (PSEG 2015-TN4280). There is no resident 
population within 2 mi of the PSEG Site, and an estimated 75 individuals reside within 2 to 3 mi. 
Of the roughly 1,300 people employed at the existing facilities (SGS and HCGS) on the PSEG 
property, the majority (82.6 percent) live in four counties in two states. These counties are 
Salem County (41.0 percent), Gloucester County (14.6 percent), and Cumberland County 
(10.0 percent) in New Jersey and New Castle County (17.0 percent) in Delaware (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280). People who would be vulnerable to nonradiological health impacts from 
preconstruction and construction activities include construction workers and personnel working 
at the PSEG Site; people working or living in the vicinity or adjacent to the site; and transient 
populations in the vicinity (e.g., temporary employees, recreational visitors, tourists). 

The nonradiological impacts on health are described in the following sections: Section 4.8.1, 
impacts on public and occupational health; Section 4.8.2, impacts of noise; and Section 4.8.3, 
impacts of transporting construction materials and personnel to and from the PSEG Site. A 
summary of nonradiological health impacts is provided in Section 4.8.4. 

4.8.1 Public and Occupational Health 

This section includes a discussion of the impacts of site preparation and construction on public 
health and worker health. 

4.8. 7.7 Public Health 

The physical impacts on the public from building a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site 
would include air pollution from dust and vehicle exhaust during site preparation. The PSEG ER 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280) indicated that physical impacts to the public from construction and 
preconstruction on the PSEG Site are unlikely because the nearest residences to the center 
point of the new plant are located 2.8 mi west in Delaware and 3.4 mi east-northeast near 
Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey. PSEG stated that operational controls would be imposed to 
mitigate dust emissions to meet State requirements. Further, engine exhaust would be 
minimized by maintaining equipment in good mechanical order, and the operation of vehicles 
and other combustion-engine equipment would comply with applicable standards, regulations, 
and requirements (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Because there are no residences in the immediate 
proximity of the new plant location, noise, dust, exhaust emissions from equipment and 
vehicles, and vibration from onsite construction activities would be unlikely to have direct 
physical impacts on the public (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

The PSEG Site is located in Salem County, administratively within the Metropolitan Philadelphia 
Interstate Air Quality Control Region (40 CFR Part 81-TN255), and Salem County is in 
attainment with NAAQSs for all criteria pollutants except 8-hour ozone, for which it is in 
nonattainment. Salem County is adjacent to New Castle County, Delaware, which is a 
maintenance area for PM 2 . 5 . Temporary and minor effects on local ambient air quality would 
occur as a result of building activities. Dust particle emissions would be generated during land¬ 
clearing, grading, and excavation activities. Local air quality would also be affected by engine 
exhaust emissions and concrete batch plant operations. PSEG would create emission-specific 
strategies and measures to comply with National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality 


NUREG-2168 


4-90 


November 2015 


Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Standards (40 CFR Part 50-TN1089) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (40 CFR Part 63-TN1403). Furthermore, PSEG indicates it would create a dust 
control program (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

An increase in daily traffic (up to 3,150 construction worker vehicles and 50 trucks) is expected 
during peak construction along roads passing through Elsinboro and Lower Alloways Creek 
Townships and Salem City (PSEG 2015-TN4280). This traffic would include passenger cars 
and light duty trucks of the construction workforce as well as truck traffic for delivery of 
construction materials and heavy equipment used to support facility construction (e.g., 
excavators, bulldozers, heavy haul trucks, cranes). Construction-related traffic could expose 
people living or working along these roads to additional emissions and noise. Because the 
construction workforce would be divided into three shifts, the increased traffic would be 
distributed over the day with only periodic and short-term increases at shift changes, which 
would result in increases in emissions and noise levels. Additionally, the existing HCGS barge 
slip and the proposed parallel barge facility would be used to deliver larger components 
(constructed at offsite facilities) and construction materials to the PSEG Site. Because barge 
traffic would be intermittent, it would not represent a significant impact. Impacts to fishermen 
and boaters on the Delaware River from noise, dust, exhaust emissions from equipment and 
vehicles, or water transport during onsite building activities would be minimal. 

4.8.1.2 Public Health Impacts from Offsite Building Activities 

PSEG has identified the proposed causeway as the major offsite building activity with potential 
impacts to public health. The proposed causeway would extend to the northeast from the 
PSEG Site for 4.8 mi and pass over tidal marshland areas. The only nearby residences are 
located at the extreme northern end of the proposed causeway. A single residence is located 
just to the west of the intersection of the proposed causeway and Mason Point Road. Building 
the causeway and any improvements of connecting roadways may expose residents of this and 
other nearby buildings to temporary and intermittent increases in noise, dust, and air pollution 
emissions associated with these activities. PSEG states that construction practices and 
controls would be used to minimize fugitive dust, and all construction equipment would meet 
appropriate emissions standards (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Most building activities would be 
during the day, thereby reducing nighttime noise levels. Traffic associated with building the 
causeway would potentially have physical impacts similar to those described for building a new 
nuclear power plant on the PSEG Site. However, because the proposed causeway building 
period would be limited and the peak workforce would be less than 10 percent of the peak 
construction workforce for a new nuclear power plant, potential impacts from causeway building 
traffic to public health would be minimal. 

Most of the proposed causeway would be built on support structures to elevate the roadway 
above the marsh to minimize impacts to the wetlands. Activities would include pile driving, form 
construction, and steel and concrete work. Emissions, noise, and vibrations would be the 
primary potential physical impacts from construction activities (Table 4-18). However, impacts 
to public health would be unlikely because there are no homes near the proposed elevated 
portions of the causeway (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Impacts to the public near the northern at- 
grade portions of the proposed causeway from emissions, noise, and vibration would be 
minimal and temporary. 


November 2015 


4-91 


NUREG-2168 


Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


4.8.1.3 Construction Worker Health 

In general, human health risks for construction workers and other personnel working on the 
site would be expected to be dominated by occupational injuries (e.g., falls, electrocution, 
asphyxiation) to workers engaged in activities such as construction, maintenance, and 
excavation. Historically, actual injury and fatality rates at nuclear reactor facilities have been 
lower than the average U.S. industrial rates. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 
(BLS 2011-TN2425), the fatal work injury rate has continued a gradual drop from 5.8 to 3.3 per 
100,000 workers from 1992 through 2009. PSEG expects that the construction workforce for a 
new nuclear power plant would peak at 4,100 during the projected 68-month construction 
period, with construction commencing in 2016 and a 2021 commercial operation date 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). To meet this 68-month schedule, the workforce would be divided into 
three shifts, with about 60 percent working on the first shift (days), 35 percent on the second 
shift (evenings), and 5 percent on the third shift (overnight). 

Table 4-18. Typical Noise and Emissions from Construction Equipment and Light 
Vehicles Used in Major Construction Projects 


Noise Level (dBA) Emissions (grams/horsepower-hour) 



At 

At 

At 







Equipment Type 

50 ft 

500 ft 

1,500 ft 

voc 

CO 

NOx 

PM 2.5 & io* a ’ 

SO 2 

CO 2 

Earthmoving 

Loaders 

88 

68 

58 

0.38 

1.55 

5.00 

0.69 

0.74 

536.2 

Dozers 

88 

68 

58 

0.36 

1.38 

4.76 

0.65 

0.74 

536.3 

T ractors 

80 

60 

50 

1.85 

8.21 

7.22 

2.70 

0.95 

691.1 

Graders 

85 

65 

55 

0.35 

1.36 

4.73 

0.65 

0.74 

536.3 

Trucks 

86 

66 

56 

0.44 

2.07 

5.49 

0.81 

0.74 

536.0 

Shovels 

84 

64 

54 

0.34 

1.30 

4.60 

0.63 

0.74 

536.3 

Materials Handling 

Concrete Pumps/ 
Mixers 

81 

61 

51 

0.61 

2.32 

7.28 

0.95 

0.73 

529.7 

Derricks and 

Mobile Cranes 

83 

63 

53 

0.44 

1.30 

5.72 

0.67 

0.73 

530.2 

Stationary 

Portable 

Generators 

84 

64 

54 

1.23 

3.76 

5.97 

1.44 

0.81 

587.3 

Impact 

Paving Breakers 

80 

60 

50 

NA (b) 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

Light Duty 






Emissions (grams/mi) 



Vehicles (c) 




HC 


CO 

NOx 

CO 2 


NA 

NA 

NA 

2.8-3.5 

20.9-27.7 

1.39-1.81 

416- 

-522 


(a) PM 2.5 = particulate matter with a mean aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 pm or less; PM 10 = particulate matter with a 
mean aerodynamic diameter of 10 pm or less. 

(b) NA = not applicable. 

(c) Includes cars and light trucks. Lower values for cars. 

Source: PSEG 2015-TN4280. 

Reference for noise: CEC 2009-TN2733. 

References for emissions: DHS 2008-TN2858; EPA 2000-TN2729. 


NUREG-2168 


4-92 


November 2015 










Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


While statistical rates show some variation, they can be used to estimate health impacts on the 
construction workers. The peak labor force involved in building a new nuclear power plant was 
multiplied by 2009 fatal injury rates (PSEG 2015-TN4280). (If the current trend of declining 
deaths continues, these numbers should be bounding.) Using the BLS fatal injury rate for the 
overall workforce and for the construction sector (BLS 2011-TN2425), one would not expect a 
fatality (0.13-0.39 expected fatal injuries) during the years of construction of a new plant at the 
PSEG Site. The BLS also tracks different kinds of nonfatal work injuries (BLS 2010-TN2731; 
BLS 2010-TN2427; BLS 2010-TN2428). Applying the 2009 rates to the same workforce over 
the years of work produced the projected occupational illnesses and injuries in Table 4-19. The 
total number of reportable injuries and occupational illnesses could range from 148 to 160 over 
the duration of construction for the new plant. Projected nonfatal accidents and occupational 
illnesses severe enough to cause days away from work would be much smaller, ranging from 45 
to 86, with New Jersey utility construction again near the lower end of the estimate. When 
interpreting these results, it is especially important to recall that they are gross (total) injury 
estimates, if the workers were not employed building a new plant at the PSEG Site, they would 
be doing other work or would be unemployed. As noted previously, the injury rate for utility 
construction activities in New Jersey is near the lower end of the estimate. Thus, the estimates 
developed above are conservative estimates of the net impact of new plant construction 
activities on workplace injuries. 

Table 4-19. Projected Total Nonfatal Occupational Illnesses and Injuries to Construction 
Force Using 2009 Rates for Various Groups 

Total Reportable Occupational Occupational Illnesses and Injuries 

Illnesses and Injuries with Days Away from Work 


All New Jersey All New Jersey 

Private All New Jersey Utility Private All New Jersey Utility 
Industry Construction Construction Construction Industry Construction Construction Construction 


Rate per 
100 full- 

3.6 (a) 

4 3< b > 

44 (c) 

3.9 (c) 

1 . 1 < a > 

1 , 6 (b) 

2 . 1 < c > 

1 4< c > 

time 
workers 
per year 

Illnesses 

148 

176 

180 

160 

45 

66 

86 

57 

and 









injuries 










Sources: 

(a) BLS 2010-TN2731. 

(b) BLS 2010-TN2427. 

(c) BLS 2010-TN2428. 


In addition to the BLS data, site-specific injury data associated with staff contracted to support 
refueling outages at the existing HCGS and SGS were provided by PSEG (PSEG 2012- 
TN2403). The work activities associated with a refueling outage (e.g., electrical work, welding, 
scaffold erection, heavy load rigging) are representative of many of the activities associated with 
construction of a new nuclear power plant. The rotating refueling outage schedule for the three 
existing nuclear units at SGS and HCGS is such that one of the units is in an outage every 
6 months. The routine schedule of outages for the three existing units makes the SGS and 
HCGS sites unique in that they experience a consistent recruitment of nominally 1,000 
contracted labor support staff from the region. This recurrent outage support staff represents a 


November 2015 


4-93 


NUREG-2168 







Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


reasonable surrogate for long-term nuclear power plant construction staff. Each outage at SGS 
and HCGS requires about 1,000 contracted staff, depending on the scope of work for a given 
outage, a majority of which are provided by a primary support staff contractor for PSEG. Injury 
incident data for the PSEG primary support staff contractor were collected between January 
2009 and August 2012. During this time frame there were 57 total reported injuries over the 
course of more than 1.12 million person-hours worked. These injuries were experienced over a 
number of craft types (e.g., carpenters, electricians, insulators, laborers) and were 
predominantly minor in nature (e.g., abrasions, sprains, insect bites, eye irritation). The low 
incidence of PSEG site-specific workplace injuries during outage construction activities 
suggests future construction activities would have minimal impacts on worker health. 

Other nonradiological impacts on workers who would clear land or build the facility would 
include noise, fugitive dust, and gaseous emissions resulting from site-preparation and 
development activities. Table 4-18 provides typical noise and emission levels associated with 
construction equipment. Mitigation measures discussed for the public would also help limit 
exposure to construction workers. Onsite impacts on workers also would be mitigated through 
training and use of personal protective equipment to minimize the risk of potentially harmful 
exposure. The NRC staff assumes that PSEG would adhere to all applicable NRC, OSHA, and 
State safety standards and procedures during preconstruction and construction activities. 

4.8.1.4 Summary of Public and Construction Worker Health Impacts 

Based on the mitigation measures identified in the PSEG ER (PSEG 2015-TN4280), the permits 
and authorizations required by State and local agencies, and the review team’s independent 
review, the review team concludes that the nonradiological health impacts to the public and 
workers from preconstruction and construction activities would be SMALL and that additional 
mitigation beyond the actions stated above would not be warranted. 

4.8.2 Noise Impacts 

Preconstruction and construction activities for a nuclear power plant are similar to those for 
other large industrial projects and involve many noise-generating activities. Regulations 
governing noise from construction-type activities are generally limited to protecting workers’ 
hearing. Federal regulations governing construction noise are found in 29 CFR Part 1910 
(TN654) and 40 CFR Part 204 (TN653). The regulations in 29 CFR Part 1910 deal with noise 
exposure in the construction environment, and the regulations in 40 CFR Part 204 generally 
govern the noise levels of compressors. New Jersey also has established protective noise 
levels. NJAC 7:29 includes regulatory limits on continuous noise levels at the residential 
property line from industrial, commercial, public service, or community service facilities. For 
continuous noise sources, the protective level is 65 dBA during the day and 50 dBA during the 
night at the residential property line (NJAC 7:29-TN2732). The similar Delaware limits 
(7 Del Admin. C. § 1149-TN3001) provide for a protective level of 65 dBA during the day and 
55 dBA during the night for residential receptors. 

PSEG states that activities associated with construction of a new nuclear power plant at the 
PSEG Site would involve equipment producing peak noise levels of 102 dBA at 50 ft 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). As illustrated in Table 4-18, noise strongly attenuates with distance. 


NUREG-2168 


4-94 


November 2015 



Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Noise levels for construction equipment typically found during building activities at a nuclear 
power plant are reduced by 30 dBA over a distance of 1,450 ft. A 10-dBA decrease in noise 
level is generally perceived as cutting the loudness in half. For context, Tipler and Mosca 
(Tipler and Mosca 2008-TN1467) list the sound intensity of a quiet office as 50 dBA, normal 
conversation as 60 dBA, busy traffic as 70 dBA, and a noisy office with machines or an average 
factory as 80 dBA. Construction noise (at 10 ft) is listed as 110 dBA, and the pain threshold is 
120 dBA. 

Based on the peak construction noise levels of 102 dBA at 50 ft and the natural attenuation of 
noise levels over distance, the bounding condition construction noise level would fall below the 
New Jersey daytime standard (65 dBA) between 3,000 and 4,000 ft from the source 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). The closest residences and recreation areas are more than 2 mi from 
the PSEG Site. Further, noise mitigation could be accomplished by maintaining equipment, 
verifying that noise control equipment on vehicles and equipment is in proper working order, and 
restricting noise- and vibration-generating activities to daylight hours. Occupational exposure 
would be monitored, and construction personnel would be provided with hearing protection 
when appropriate. 

According to NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996-TN288), noise levels below 60 to 65 dBA are 
considered to be of small significance. More recently, the impacts of noise were considered in 
NUREG-0586, Supplement 1 (NRC 2002-TN665). The criterion for assessing the level of 
significance was not expressed in terms of sound levels but based on the effect of noise on 
human activities. The criterion in NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, is stated as follows: 

Noise impacts are considered detectable if sound levels are sufficiently high to 
disrupt normal human activities on a regular basis. The noise impacts are 
considered destabilizing if sound levels are sufficiently high that the affected area 
is essentially unsuitable for normal human activities, or if the behavior or 
breeding of a threatened and endangered species is affected. 

Considering the temporary nature of construction activities and the location and characteristics 
of the PSEG Site, the review team concludes that noise impacts from preconstruction and 
construction activities would be SMALL and that no further mitigation beyond the actions 
identified above would be warranted. 

4.8.3 Impacts of Transporting Construction Materials and Construction Personnel to 
the PSEG Site 

This EIS assesses the impact of transporting workers and materials to and from the PSEG Site 
from three perspectives: socioeconomic impacts, air-quality impacts resulting from the dust and 
particulate matter emitted by vehicle traffic, and potential health impacts caused by additional 
traffic-related accidents. The socioeconomic impacts are addressed in Section 4.4, and the air- 
quality impacts are addressed in Section 4.7. The human health impacts are addressed in this 
section and in Section 4.9. The assumptions that were made to determine reasonable 
estimates of nonradiological impacts from transportation during construction are discussed 
below. 


November 2015 


4-95 


NUREG-2168 


Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


To develop representative commuter traffic impacts, traffic accident, injury, and fatality rates for 
New Jersey, data were obtained from the New Jersey Department of Transportation 
(NJDOT 2012-TN2430) and the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (NHTSA 2012-TN2429), for the years 2006 to 2010. The New Jersey 
traffic statistics indicate there are 3.63 accidents, 0.88 injuries, and 0.77 fatalities per 100 million 
vehicle miles (NJDOT 2012-TN2430). The estimated impacts of transporting construction 
workers to and from the PSEG Site are shown in Table 4-20. The total annual traffic fatalities 
during construction are estimated to be less than 0.21. There may be 0.24 injuries from traffic 
accidents associated with transport of the construction workforce. The addition of vehicles 
associated with personnel performing construction activities at a new nuclear power plant at the 
PSEG Site is expected to result in a minimal increase relative to the current traffic accident 
injury risk in the area surrounding the PSEG Site. The implementation of mitigation measures 
identified in Section 4.4 would reduce the potential for traffic accidents in the area surrounding 
the PSEG Site. 


Table 4-20. Nonradiological Impacts of Transporting Construction Workers to and from 
the PSEG Site 


Type of Worker 

Accidents per Year 

Injuries per Year 

Fatalities per Year 

Construction 

0.99 

0.24 

0.21 


Traffic associated with the construction workforce traveling to and from the PSEG Site would 
also generate noise. The construction workforce would work in shifts, with the largest shift 
working during the day. Smaller shifts would work in the evening and night. Because of this, 
the increase in noise relative to background conditions would likely be most noticeable during 
shift changes in the morning and late afternoon. Posted speed limits, traffic control, and 
administrative measures such as staggered shift hours would be used to reduce traffic noise 
during weekday business hours. Potential noise impacts to the community would be intermittent 
and limited primarily to shift changes. Therefore, human health impacts from noise would be 
minimal. 

Large components and equipment would be transported by barge and delivered to a barge¬ 
unloading facility constructed at the PSEG Site. Construction of this unloading facility would not 
result in impacts to the public because its location is in an access-restricted area of the PSEG 
Site (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Also, a concrete batch plant would be located on the PSEG Site 
during construction, thus further reducing the number of trucks needed for transport of materials 
during construction activities associated with a new nuclear power plant. 

The use of barges for transporting large components and equipment to the PSEG Site and the 
onsite concrete batch plant would reduce the number of trucks needed for construction 
activities. Based on these factors, the information provided by PSEG, and the review team’s 
independent evaluation, the review team concludes that impacts of transporting building 
materials and personnel to a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site during preconstruction 
and construction activities would have minimal nonradiological health impacts. The NRC staff 
also concludes that no further mitigation measures beyond those proposed by PSEG would be 
warranted. 


NUREG-2168 


4-96 


November 2015 





Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


4.8.4 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts 

The review team evaluated the mitigation measures identified in the PSEG ER (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280) and the permits and authorizations required by State and local agencies to build a new 
nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site. The review team also evaluated impacts on public health 
and on construction workers from fugitive dust, occupational injuries, noise, and the transport of 
materials and personnel to the PSEG Site. No significant impacts related to the nonradiological 
health of staff or personnel were identified during the course of this review. 

On the basis of information provided in the PSEG ER and the review team’s independent 
evaluation, the review team concludes that nonradiological health impacts from noise, air 
quality, and occupational injuries from preconstruction- and construction-related activities for a 
new nuclear power plant would be minimal. Use of the proposed causeway for construction 
traffic, implementation of proposed improvements to roads, and installation of traffic signals and 
improved traffic patterns would reduce transportation impacts associated with building-related 
activities. On the basis of the above analysis, the review team concludes that the impacts on 
nonradiological health would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted. 

4.9 Radiation Health Impacts 

Potential sources of radiation exposure for construction workers during the site-preparation and 
construction phases of building a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site would include 
direct radiation; liquid radioactive waste discharges; and gaseous radioactive effluents from the 
first new nuclear unit (if a multiunit design, such as the API000, is selected), SGS Units 1 and 
2, and HCGS Unit 1. For the purposes of this discussion, construction and site-preparation 
workers are assumed to be members of the public. Therefore, the dose estimates are 
compared to the dose limits for the public, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart D (TN283). 

4.9.1 Direct Radiation Exposures 

In the ER (PSEG 2015-TN4280), PSEG identified three sources of direct radiation exposure 
from the site: (1) casks loaded into the onsite independent spent fuel storage installation 
(ISFSI), (2) SGS Units 1 and 2 and HCGS Unit 1, and (3) the first AP1000 unit (if an AP1000 
design is chosen). The first API 000 unit would be placed in service during construction of the 
second API000 unit, so direct radiation from the first unit must be considered. 

PSEG used fence line thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and environmental TLDs to 
measure direct radiation levels at locations in and around the protected area. Direct radiation 
dose measurements from SGS and HCGS were taken at the north TLD station (1 SI) with an 
average monthly reading of 4.77 mrem resulting in an equivalent annual dose of 57.2 mrem 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). This is comparable to the preoperational dose of 55 mrem/yr. 

Assuming continuous occupancy would result in an annual direct radiation dose from SGS and 
HCGS of approximately 2.2 mrem. Based on a 2,400-hour work year for a construction worker, 
PSEG calculated this direct radiation pathway would provide for an annual construction worker 
dose of about 0.6 mrem (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 


November 2015 


4-97 


NUREG-2168 


Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Direct radiation exposure from the ISFSI was calculated by PSEG using the Monte Carlo 
N-Particle computer code, considering a conservative scenario with the ISFSI fully loaded with 
200 HI-STORM 100S Version B (Model 100S-218) storage casks (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Doses were determined at distances of 10 and 25 m north of the ISFSI pad (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280). Direct radiation doses from the ISFSI are monitored and minimized by administrative 
controls such as cask loading procedures that maximize shielding and physical barriers such as 
a fence to establish a standoff distance that minimizes construction worker dose to remain 
within regulatory limits. Administrative controls for loading the ISFSI limit doses from exceeding 
100 mrem/yr at the ISFSI fence, 10 m north of the ISFSI pad. Based on this dose limit, doses 
for construction workers were adjusted for the 25 m location (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

As provided in ER Table 4.5-8, the annual worker dose from the ISFSI was estimated to be 
10.3 mrem (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

If a dual-unit API 000 is selected for the PSEG Site, one unit would be placed in service while 
construction workers were working on the second unit. PSEG calculated the direct radiation 
doses for construction workers at the second API 000 using the distance of 800 ft from the first 
API 000 containment centerline (the expected minimum distance between containment building 
centerlines). The shield building wall and compartment shield walls for the reactor vessel and 
steam generators would reduce the radiation levels outside of the shield building to less 
than 0.25 mrem/hr according to the API 000 Design Certification Document (DCD) 
(Westinghouse 2011-TN261). The API 000 DCD also provides a nominal distance of 72.5 ft 
between the outside surface of the shield building wall and the building’s centerline 
(Westinghouse 2011-TN261). PSEG applied an inverse square distance model to the AP1000 
DCD dose rate to determine the dose rate at 800 ft from the first containment building centerline 
along with an adjustment for the estimated 2,400-hour work year for a construction worker. The 
resulting annual construction worker dose was estimated by PSEG to be about 4.9 mrem 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

In addition, at certain times during construction, PSEG would receive, possess, and use specific 
radioactive by-product, source, and special nuclear material in support of construction and 
preparations for operation. These sources of low-level radiation are required to be controlled by 
the applicant’s radiation protection program, with physical protections if necessary, and have 
very specific uses under controlled conditions. Therefore, these sources are expected to result 
in a negligible contribution to construction worker doses. 

4.9.2 Radiation Exposures from Gaseous Effluents 

Gaseous radioactive effluents from SGS Units 1 and 2 are released at a plant vent receiving 
discharges from the waste gas holdup system, condenser evacuation system, containment 
purge and pressure/vacuum relief vents, and auxiliary building ventilation. Gaseous radioactive 
effluents from HCGS are released at the north plant vent and the south plant vent. A small 
amount of gaseous radioactive effluents is also released from the filtration, recirculation, and 
ventilation system vent during testing periods. 

Gaseous radioactive releases are reported to the NRC annually. The gaseous activity emitted 
from HCGS and SGS Units 1 and 2 are shown in Tables 1A and 1C of the PSEG Nuclear LLC 
2008 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report for the Salem and Hope Creek Generating 


NUREG-2168 


4-98 


November 2015 


Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Stations (PSEG 2009-TN2730). This year was selected by PSEG as being an acceptable basis 
for estimating the normal effluent releases during construction due to, in part, the operating 
record of the HCGS and SGS units that year (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Using the 2008 gaseous 
effluent data and the methods in the PSEG Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (PSEG 2010- 
TN2741), the estimated dose from the 2008 gaseous effluents (submersion in cloud, inhalation, 
and deposition) from SGS and HCGS was determined by PSEG to be less than 0.01 mrem 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

For the case of two API000 units, the first API 000 unit would be placed in service during 
construction of the second API 000 unit, so gaseous effluents must be considered. The 
estimated air doses are based on a postulated DCD atmospheric dispersion factor (-//Q). The 
doses were altered for site-specific conditions by multiplying them by the ratio of the site-specific 
dispersion factor to the DCD dispersion factor. By applying a y/Q of 1.6 * 10" 5 s/m 3 
(Westinghouse 2011-TN261), and the hours in a work year (2,400 hours), PSEG calculated the 
annual construction worker dose for gaseous effluents from the first API 000 to be about 
2.67 mrem (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

4.9.3 Radiation Exposures from Liquid Effluents 

Liquid radioactive effluents discharged to the Delaware River were evaluated for their 
contribution to the total effective dose equivalent to construction workers. The principal 
exposure pathways are fish ingestion, boating, swimming, and shoreline use on and near the 
Delaware River. There are no dose contributions from drinking water because the brackish 
water of the Delaware River near the PSEG Site is not potable. As done for the gaseous 
effluents, PSEG obtained doses from liquid effluents from the PSEG Nuclear LLC 2008 Annual 
Radioactive Effluent Release Report for the Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations 
(PSEG 2009-TN2730). Using the 2008 liquid effluent data (PSEG 2009-TN2730) and the 
methods in the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (PSEG 2010-TN2741), the estimated annual 
construction worker whole body dose from liquid effluents of HCGS and SGS was estimated to 
be less than 0.01 mrem (PSEG 2015-TN4280). For the case of two AP1000 units, PSEG 
applied the same dose from this pathway as that for members of the public from liquid effluents 
from the first API 000 unit. By assuming construction workers would have the same recreational 
and consumption patterns, PSEG estimated an annual dose of about 0.19 mrem (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280). 

4.9.4 Total Dose to Site-Preparation Workers 

PSEG estimated maximum annual total effective dose equivalent to a construction worker to be 
about 18.7 mrem based on a 2,400-hour work year (PSEG 2015-TN4280). This is the sum of 
seven sources: (1) SGS and HCGS direct sources, (2) ISFSI direct sources, (3) API000 direct 
sources, (4) SGS and HCGS gaseous effluents, (5) AP1000 gaseous effluents, (6) SGS and 
HCGS liquid effluents, and (7) API000 liquid effluents (PSEG 2015-TN4280). This estimate is 
well within the dose limit to an individual member of the public (100 mrem in a year) found in 
10 CFR 20.1301 (TN283). The maximum estimated annual collective dose to site-preparation 
workers, based on an annual individual dose of about 18.7 mrem and an estimated maximum 
workforce of 4,100, would be about 77 person-rem (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 


November 2015 


4-99 


NUREG-2168 


Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


4.9.5 Summary of Radiological Health Impacts 

The NRC staff concludes that the estimates of doses to construction workers during site- 
preparation and construction activities are well within the NRC annual exposure limits (i.e., 

100 mrem) designed to protect the public health. Based on information provided by PSEG and 
the NRC staff’s independent evaluation, the NRC staff concludes that the radiological health 
impacts to construction workers engaged in building activities related to a new nuclear power 
plant at the PSEG Site would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be warranted. 

4.10 Nonradioactive Waste Impacts 

This section describes the environmental impacts that could result from the generation, 
handling, and disposal of nonradioactive waste during building activities for a new nuclear 
power plant at the PSEG Site. The types of nonradioactive waste that would be generated, 
handled, and disposed of during building activities would include construction debris, municipal 
waste, excavation spoils, and sanitary waste. The potential impacts resulting from these types 
of wastes are assessed in the following sections. 

4.10.1 Impacts to Land 

Building activities related to a new nuclear power plant would generate wastes such as 
construction debris and spoils (i.e., earthen debris, including soil and rock). These materials 
would be sorted at the PSEG Site; the majority would be reclaimed as recyclable or reusable 
material and the remainder disposed of in appropriate landfills. Furthermore, PSEG currently 
implements a successful waste-minimization plan for SGS and HCGS and proposes to apply 
this plan to building activities for a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site (PSEG 2012- 
TN2458). 

PSEG would not allow open burning of refuse, garbage, or any other waste material on the site. 
The solid waste would be taken to the nearest suitable landfill for disposal (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280). Hazardous and nonhazardous solid wastes would be managed according to county 
and State handling and transportation regulations. Consistent with current PSEG practice, solid 
wastes would be reused or recycled to the extent possible. Wastes appropriate for recycling or 
reclamation (e.g., used oil, antifreeze, scrap metal, universal wastes) would be managed using 
approved, licensed contractors. Nonradioactive solid waste destined for offsite landfill disposal 
would be handled according to county, State, and Federal regulations and disposed of at 
approved, licensed offsite commercial waste disposal sites. County and State permits and 
regulations for the handling and disposal of solids would be obtained and implemented. The 
review team expects that solid-waste impacts would be minimal and that additional mitigation 
would not be warranted. 

Based on the waste management and minimization program already in place for HCGS and 
SGS and PSEG plans to manage solid and liquid wastes for a new nuclear power plant in a 
similar manner and in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, and local requirements and 
standards, the review team expects that impacts to land from nonradioactive wastes generated 
during building would be minimal and that no further mitigation would be warranted. 


NUREG-2168 


4-100 


November 2015 


Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


4.10.2 Impacts to Water 

Surface-water runoff from site development activities for a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG 
Site would be controlled and managed according to existing water and wastewater treatment 
procedures at SGS and HCGS (PSEG 2015-TN4280). PSEG currently maintains engineering 
and procedural controls that prevent or minimize the release of harmful levels of wastewater 
constituents to the Delaware River watershed consistent with Federal, State and local 
requirements, including those of the DRBC related to surface-water regulations (72 FR 46931- 
TN2736). There would be an increase in the generation of sanitary wastewater, but discharges 
from a new nuclear power plant are expected to be minor and would not warrant mitigation 
given the small volume of these constituents, the capacity of the existing wastewater treatment 
system, the large volume of the receiving water body (the Delaware River), and the regular tidal 
mixing that occurs within the Delaware River adjacent to and downstream of the PSEG Site. 

Chemical treatment of the safety-related cooling water system of a new nuclear power plant at 
the PSEG Site with biocides, dispersants, molluskicides, and scale inhibitors would be required 
on a periodic basis. These chemicals are subject to review and approval for use by NJDEP, 
and wastewater discharges to surface water would comply with the NJPDES permit. The total 
residual chemical concentrations in the discharges to the Delaware River watershed are subject 
to limits established by NJDEP that are deemed protective of the water quality of the Delaware 
River (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Stormwater discharges associated with building activities for a new nuclear power plant would 
require an NJPDES permit (PSEG 2015-TN4280). PSEG states that in addition to the 
application for the NJPDES permit, it would implement an SWPPP designed to prevent the 
discharge of harmful quantities of pollutants with stormwater discharge. The SWPPP would 
follow EPA guidance (EPA 1992-TN3300) and the current version of New Jersey Stormwater 
Best Management Practices (NJDEP 2009-TN3221). This SWPPP would incorporate drainage 
from all areas and facilities associated with building a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site 
and would be consistent with the existing SWPPPs at HCGS and SGS (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Based on the existing regulated practices for PSEG's management of liquid discharges for 
HCGS and SGS. including sanitary wastewater, and the plans for managing stormwater, the 
review team expects that impacts to water from nonradioactive effluents when building a new 
nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site would be minimal, and additional mitigation would not be 
warranted. 

4.10.3 Impacts to Air 

As discussed in Sections 4.4.1.1 and 4.7.1, PSEG would need to manage fugitive dust 
generated during preconstruction and construction activities. PSEG would use air-quality 
protection procedures to minimize the generation of fugitive dust and the release of emissions 
from equipment and vehicles and comply with local permits from the NJDEP Division of Air 
Quality. 

The construction environmental controls would include managing the use of unpaved roads 
(speed limits, use of dust suppression, and minimization of dirt tracking onto paved roads); 


November 2015 


4-101 


NUREG-2168 


Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


covering haul trucks; phasing grading activities to minimize the exposed amount of disturbed 
soils; stabilizing roads and excavated areas with coarse material covers or vegetation; and 
performing proper maintenance of vehicles, generators, and other equipment. 

Based on the regulated practices for managing air emissions from construction equipment and 
temporary stationary sources, BMPs for controlling fugitive dust, and vehicle inspection and 
traffic management plans, the review team expects that impacts to air from nonradioactive 
emissions while building a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site would be minimal. 
However, additional mitigation may be warranted, depending on the outcome of the NRC, 
USACE, and USCG’s conformity applicability analyses, which are required by, pursuant to the 
Clean Air Act Section 176 (42 USC 7401 et seq. -TN1141) and 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart B 
(TN2495). 

4.10.4 Summary of Impacts 

Solid, liquid, and gaseous wastes generated when building a new nuclear power plant at the 
PSEG Site would be managed by following the practices currently used by PSEG during the 
operation of HCGS and SGS and would be in compliance with county, State, and Federal 
regulations. County and State permits and regulations for handling and disposal of solid and 
liquid waste would ensure compliance with the CWA (33 USC 1251 et seq. -TN662), NJDEP 
limits and requirements, and DRBC water-quality standards. Solid waste would be recycled or 
disposed of in existing, permitted landfills. Sanitary wastes would be treated on the site and 
discharged locally after being treated to the levels stipulated in the NJPDES permit. An SWPPP 
would specify the mitigation measures to be put in place to manage stormwater runoff. To avoid 
any noticeable offsite air-quality impacts, the use of BMPs to control dust and minimize engine 
exhaust emissions would be expected. 

Based on information provided by PSEG and the review team’s independent evaluation, the 
review team concludes that nonradioactive waste impacts on land, water, and air from building 
activities associated with a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site would be SMALL and that 
additional mitigation would not be warranted. 

4.11 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Construction 
Activities 

In its evaluation of environmental impacts during building activities for a new nuclear power 
plant at the PSEG Site, the review team considered PSEG’s stated intention to comply with the 
following measures and controls that would limit adverse environmental impacts: 

• compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations 
intended to prevent or minimize adverse environmental impacts (e.g., solid-waste 
management, erosion and sediment control, air emissions control, noise control, stormwater 
management, discharge prevention and response, hazardous material management); 

• compliance with applicable requirements of permits or licenses required for construction of a 
new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site (e.g., DA Section 404 Permit, NPDES permit); 

• compliance with existing PSEG processes and/or procedures applicable for environmental 
compliance activities during construction and preconstruction at the PSEG Site (e.g., solid- 


NUREG-2168 


4-102 


November 2015 



Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


waste management, hazardous waste management, and discharge prevention and 
response); 

• incorporation of environmental requirements into construction contracts; and 

• identification of environmental resources and potential impacts during the ESP process and 
the development of revisions to the PSEG ER. 

Examples of PSEG's stated measures to minimize impacts and protect the environment include 
the following: 

• using BMPs for construction and preconstruction activities; 

• implementing plans to manage stormwater and to prevent and appropriately address 
accidental spills; 

• managing and/or restoring wetlands and marsh creek channels; and 

• adhering to Federal, State, and local permitting requirements. 

The review team considered these measures and controls in its evaluation of the impacts of 
building a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site. Table 4-21, which is based on 
Table 4.6-1 in the ER (PSEG 2015-TN4280) and other information provided by the applicant, 
summarizes the measures and controls to limit adverse impacts when building a new nuclear 
power plant. Some measures apply to more than one impact category. 

Table 4-21. Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts when Building a New 
Nuclear Power Plant at the PSEG Site 


Resource Area 

Land-Use Impacts 

—The Site and 
Vicinity 


—Causeway and 
Pipeline Corridors 


Specific Measures and Controls 


• Use stormwater management plans to control erosion and runoff. 

• Return lands to former use upon completion of construction. 

• Offset loss of wetland use and function by mitigation. 

• Allow wetland areas to return to former use upon completion of construction. 

• Limit ground disturbances to the smallest amount of area necessary to 
construct and maintain the plant. 

• Perform ground-disturbing activities in accordance with regulatory and permit 
requirements; use adequate best management practices (BMPs) erosion- 
control measures to minimize impacts. 

• Minimize potential spills of chemicals and petroleum materials through 
training, spill prevention plans, and rigorous compliance with applicable 
regulations and procedures. 

• Restrict soil stockpiling and reuse to designated areas. 

• Use BMPs and stormwater management plans to control erosion and runoff, 
minimize clearing, minimize effects on human populations, wetlands, water 
bodies, archaeological and historic sites, vegetation, and wildlife. 

• Site the new corridors to avoid impact on critical or sensitive habitats/species 
and to minimize work in wetlands and floodplains. 

• Limit ground-disturbing activities such as vegetation removal to defined 
corridors. 

• Minimize potential spills of hazardous wastes/materials through training and 
rigorous compliance with applicable regulations. 


November 2015 


4-103 


NUREG-2168 





Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Table 4-21. (continued) 


Resource Area 
Water-Related Impacts 

—Hydrological • 

Alterations 


—Water Use and 
Quality 


Ecological Impacts 

—Terrestrial 
Ecosystems 


—Aquatic 
Ecosystems 


Specific Measures and Controls 


Minimize sizes of cleared areas and use BMPs and design features to control 
erosion and to minimize and stabilize affected areas, including areas where 
shoreline modifications and dredging occur. 

Reconnect isolated marsh creek channels and restore marsh creek channels 
as part of wetland mitigation program implementation. 

Use a stormwater management plan to control erosion and runoff; and 
grading design to manage runoff for controlled discharge to Delaware River. 
Construct the causeway as an elevated structure. 

Limit the extent of dewatering to only that necessary to proceed with 
construction; use a vertical low-permeability barrier to limit groundwater 
inflow to excavations. 

Develop and implement a formal stormwater pollution prevention plan 
(SWPPP) and erosion-control plan to define specific stormwater control 
measures during construction activities. 

Reconnect isolated marsh creek channels by development of supplemental 
connecting channels. 

Use BMPs and stormwater management plans to control erosion and runoff. 
Design and implement site grading to manage runoff for controlled discharge 
to Delaware River. 

Follow New Jersey Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) permit 
requirements to minimize discharge impacts to receiving waters. 

Dispose of dredged materials in approved upland areas. 

Implement spill prevention control plans; limit construction to shallow aquifers 
to avoid adverse effects on deeper aquifers used for potable water; and use 
secondary containments to prevent and control spills. 

Obtain water for building purposes under the existing groundwater-use 
permit; treat sanitary wastewater onsite. 


Obtain a Department of the Army permit and comply with requirements to 
avoid, minimize, restore, and/or compensate impacts on wetlands, including 
development of a mitigation action plan. 

Maintain ongoing efforts to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands as part of 
design and permitting process. 

Phase the building activities to minimize the duration of soil exposure and 
implement soil stabilization measures as quickly as possible after disturbance 
to minimize erosion and sedimentation. 

Conduct consultations with State and Federal agencies to minimize potential 
unavoidable impacts to listed species as part of offsite proposed causeway 
development. 

Limit clearing to the smallest amount of area necessary to construct the plant 
and the causeway. 

Use established (SWPPP) procedures for minimizing erosion or sediment 
deposition on terrestrial habitat. 

Confine vehicles to roadways and authorized stream crossings. 

Obtain and comply with Department of the Army permit and State 401 water- 
quality certification requirements to avoid and minimize impacts on aquatic 
resources from dredging and in-water installation activities. 

Comply with applicable NJPDES permit requirements for stormwater 
discharge. 


NUREG-2168 


4-104 


November 2015 









Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Table 4-21. (continued) 


Resource Area _ Specific Measures a nd Controls 

• Use BMPs to minimize erosion and sedimentation based on New Jersey 
SWPPP requirements. 

• Maintain ongoing efforts to avoid and minimize impacts to aquatic 
ecosystems as part of design and permitting process. 

Socioeconomic Impacts 


—Physical Impacts 


—Socioeconomic 
Impacts 


Environmental 

Justice 


Manage major high noise construction activities to limit and minimize noise 
impacts to residences in the vicinity. 

Use BMPs for controlling fugitive dust and proper maintenance of 
construction equipment for controlling emissions. 

Train and appropriately protect employees and construction workers to 
reduce the risk of potential exposure to noise, dust, and exhaust emissions. 
To the extent possible, recycle construction wastes with remaining waste 
disposed in approved landfills. 

Stabilize cleared areas, minimize disturbance and visual intrusion, and 
remove construction debris in timely manner. 

Install traffic controls and additional turning capacity to mitigate traffic delays; 
construction workforce will work in three shifts to spread additional 
construction traffic volume over a 24-hour period. 

Provide onsite services for emergency first aid, and conduct regular health 
and safety monitoring. 

Install traffic controls and additional turning capacity to mitigate traffic delays 
in and around Salem City. 

Implement three shifts for construction workforce to spread additional 
construction traffic volume over a 24-hour period. 

Stagger shifts, encourage carpooling, and time deliveries to avoid shift 
change or commute times. 

Erect signs alerting drivers of construction and potential for increased 
construction traffic. 

Use procedures and employee training program to reduce potential for traffic 
accidents. 

Implement no mitigating measures or controls required beyond those 
identified above. 


Historic Properties 
and Cultural 
Resources 


Air Quality 


Nonradiological 

Health 


Conduct Phase II survey of upland lands, and consult with the New Jersey 
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to define mitigation requirements, 
as appropriate, for construction of the causeway. 

Consult with New Jersey SHPO if a cultural resource is discovered during 
construction activities. 

Follow established procedures to halt work if a potential unanticipated 
historic, cultural, or paleontological resource is discovered. 

Use dust control measures (e.g., surface watering, stabilizing disturbed areas 
and spoils areas, covering trucks). 

Maintain operational effectiveness of pollution control devices installed on 
construction vehicles and emissions-generating equipment. 

Adhere to all Occupational Safety and Health Administration and State safety 
standards, practices, and procedures during building activities; provide 
regular training for site workers and visitors. 

Implement site-wide safety and medical program, including safety policies, 
safe work practices, and general and topic-specific training. 


November 2015 


4-105 


NUREG-2168 







Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Table 4-21. (continued) 


Resource Area _ Specific Measures and Controls _ 

• Ensure compliance with all Federal and State regulatory requirements 
pertaining to the radiation protection program (e.g., 10 CFR Part 20-TN283). 

• Handle waste generated during building in accordance with local, State, and 
Federal requirements. 

• Use existing landfills. 

• Implement a waste minimization plan, including beneficial reuse and 
recycling of building debris. 

• Implement both an SWPPP as required by the NJPDES permit and a Spill 
Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan to reduce impacts from site 
runoff and spills. 

• Implement operational controls (BMPs) to minimize fugitive dust emissions; 
implement traffic plans to reduce emissions from vehicles; regularly maintain 
emissions-generating equipment and operate in accordance with State air- 
quality regulations. 

Source: Adapted from Table 4.6-1 in the PSEG Environmental Report (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 


Radiation Exposure 
to Construction 
Workers 

Nonradioactive 

Waste 


4.12 Summary of Preconstruction and Construction Impacts 

The impact category levels determined by the review team in the previous sections are 
summarized in Table 4-22. The impact category levels for the NRC-authorized construction 
discussed in this chapter are denoted in the table as SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE as a 
measure of their expected adverse environmental impacts, if any. Impact levels for the 
combined construction and preconstruction activities are similarly noted. Some impacts, such 
as the addition of tax revenue from a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site to the local 
economies, are likely to be beneficial and are noted as such in the “Impact Level” columns. 


NUREG-2168 


4-106 


November 2015 







Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


O) 

in 

O 

LU 

C/5 

Ql 

0) 

s: 

■*-> 

cd 

*-> 

c 

ro 


0 

$ 

o 

Q. 

re 

_0) 

o 

D 

z 

$ 

0 

z 

re 

05 

c 


o 

CD 

E 

o 

k- 

CO 

*-> 

o 

re 

a 

E 

o 

re 

E 

E 

3 

C/5 

cvi 

CN 

■ 

Q) 

n 

re 


— 

0 "O 

> c 
a; re 
-i c 

> o 

O? 

05 3 

0 O 


re 

o 


CO 

c 
o 
o o 
S >- 
E ° 


_co *o 

m 0 

> N 

0 Jr 

_l O 

>*2 
ML 

2 o * 

re O' *2 
2 O 
0 O 


CJ 

*-> 

u 

re 

a 


MS 


CO 

c 

0 

E 

E 

o 

CJ 


re 

0 


0 

a 

i_ 

3 

O 

CO 

0 

a 


LLI 

h- 

< 

cr 

LU 

Q 

O 


0 

re 

i_ 

0 

TD 

O 


re % 

CD -O 

a -o 

g§ 
s s 

<D —• 

C O 

_ re 

o 

05 CO 

.E 

■O < 4 - 

— o 

re _ 
jo re 


c 

0 

c 

re 

E 

_ 

0 

Q. 


C 

o 


$ re 

0 ° 
re cd 

o 10 

0 LJ, 
0 

0 — 
O CO 

re o 
-2 LU 
re C /5 
0 Q_ 

"O 0 

_c 


— 0 
c o 
re c 

E ^ 

o. £ 

-—- re 

0 2 
0 re 

CT (D 

c Q_ 

1! 

0 0 
0 "O 

X 3 

o c 

re 

o —- — o 


re 

o 

$ 


0 

O 

re 

CL 


0 re 
■C o 
o 

o ° 

— TD 

0 "5 

§1 


o 

LU O 

C /5 ? 
Q_ lo 
_ 00 

7 0 


_ — 0 ~ 


^ -o 

"C 3 

0 0 o 
a.-c % 
O" 5 
q. o LU 
cO 
re < 
Cl c /5 
0 3 
re 

o> 0 
0 c h- 
o 


O 

LU 

C/5 

CL 


0 


O 

re 


0 LO 

CM 


o 

X 


CM 


re re 

0 15 

re 


xj 

0 


0 c 

2 o 
re 0 

^ o 

0 re 

-C CL 

c.i 

2 S 

re 0 


x 

0 

0 


2 LL 

0 Q 

* §-£ 
m 0) 

o .E j= 

m 0) a 

2-00 
o 2 u- 


x: jz 0 


0 

u 

re 

a 

E 

0 

0 

D 

I 

■o 

c 

re 


-o 

c 

_re 

0 


o 

re 


c 

0 

> 

-o 

c 

re 

0 

C /5 


c 

o 

c 

_re 

a. 

0 

o 

CL 


o — 

5 £ 

c 2 

_re o 

CD 0" 

n "O 

— c 

■0 S 2 
re 0 

^ -o 
re 0 

8.2 

E 03 


0 — 

Cl 0 
1° 


re 


o 

2 

0 


o 

re 

co 

o 


0 

o 

c 

re 

JO 


0 0 

O) 0 
.E -o 
IE -o 


0 


0 re 


_q _re 


re 

CM 
LO_ 

_c m 
u O 
Ire < 

° Q) 

1/5 5 

| E 

o 

0" •fc 

"O d) 

re k. 

0 re 

0 o 

$ re 


£ 03 

re LU 
re O 
£ < 
k. C/5 
0=5 
S 3 0 
re _re 


ro 

0 

o 

Q_ 

0 


"O 

0 

c 


re 0 c 


$ 

0 

E 

o 


Q. -Q 

re re 

0 re 


0 ~ 0 

0 0 = 

0 re 

"o 0 0 

— TO 

9 0 5 
$ jo < 


re 

re 

cn 2 

E • 0 

0/5 o 

re .0 c 

>> re 2 

80 

0 0 E 
q. 2 o 
re o ^ 
o c o 

re ™ ro 

g cog 

Q.U- ^ 

0 Q k- 

X) O 0 

0 $ 

-C 0 
^ C 

'o re 

= cn 0 

.E c 

o Q.-- 
u o 0 

0 0? 
E > 0 
o 0 0 

0 T 3 -C 

o o 0 
0 LL 2 
CL Q - 

0 c 5 

>- CD 

O O) C 

w .E 15 
oi E 

0X° 

c 0 O 


o 

< 

C/5 

ZD 

0 


0 

0 

re 

-o 

c 


LU 

I- 

< 

cc: 

LU 

o 

o 


_0 

X2 

re 

o 

5. 

Cl 

< 


If 

0 
0 o 

05 'lt: 

-o O 
2 C 
■0 O ^ 

0 5 w 

^2 

- o 00 

LU $ Q_ 

'' LL 0 

Q 2 

O c 

-o 0 

C 0 

re 0 

-0 0 3 

c _ 

re cp "o 


0 


_ < _ 

.0 0 0 
hr x 
0 
re 

"O Q) 
E >» N 


re 


X 5 

c 


re o- 2 
^,00 
X 3 O 0 
0 _ -o 
CL CD ^ 

O 0 o 

0 Q. c 

0 .{« re 

re re re 


>. 

re 

$ 

0 

0 

re 

re 

o 

0 

re: 

05 

c 


o 

re 

o 

$ 

-O 

c 

re 


re 

0 0 

c > 
0 re 0 

-C _Q -O 


hh 0 


re 2 


0 

0 £ 
? c 
2 S 
« '5 


0 


-o 

c 

re 


8 .52 o 


= >,hh 


cn 

c 


82 ^ 


re 

jo 


-o 

0 

0 

o 

o 

0 

0 

re 

0 

0 

c 

re 

-Q 

re 

"0 

■o 

c 

re 


— -o 
0 c 
"o re 
c — 
re 0 


0 


o 

0 

E 

o 

C/5 


0 

re: 


re 

L_ 

o 

CL 

E 

0 

0 

rej 

re 

o 

£ 

'u 

re 

o 

O) 

to 

'o 

re 

o 

re 

'o 

o 

re 

LO 

co 

CM 


0 — 

^ 5 

"O k-" 

0 n 

-° O 
re E 

o) re- 0 
0 0-0 
-o > -o 
>^2 3 


c 

re 

3 

0 

c 

re 

E 

k— 

0 

CL 


3 5 
re 


o 

i 1 ! 

CL -O 0 

'— 0 o 

g 0 05 
3 Q.CO 

‘■r: 0 re 
0 0 o 

X Jrr 2 
0 2m 


0 «_ 

■ - o 

o 7 0 

> 0 

r— d) 

C 0 in 
2 o LD 

0 0 

i_ 0 -—■ 


*o 0/3 
0 X 
0-0 
o a 

0 — 
> c 

%.Q 

§1 
C 0 
O 0 

>- cr 
3 c 

0 o 
o -= 

2 5 
O 0 

2 0 
5 c 
*- o 

0^ 

re o 
re 0 
0 -o 
0 0 
jo 0 

0 ^ 

0 m 

§■■§ 
t c 

re 

2 -o 
-Q 0 

So 
o 0 

3 2 

c CL 


X 

0 


-«0O 
S 0 > 

0 n ^ 
r o in 

^ x cr 

< -o o 

0 0 Q 

2^cn 

0 c 
— — 0 
0-0- 

c c 

.0 0 0 

re x^2 

k- < 

2 1 E 

0 > o 

0>i 
K — 0 
-O g -p 

re < 0 

0 c 2 
^ 0 g 

T 3 ^ -p. 

0 

_m cn O) 

0 0 .E 

k- C 0 

0 0 re 
re ^ ^ 

0 "O 
0 — < 

6 g | 
re o ^ 

^ re 0 
2 0 2 

< ^ O 


re 

o 

£ 

c _ 
o 0 

o ^ 
0 ^ 

O ^ 

CL 0 

_ _c 

re 3 

c o 
0 **- 

E TJ 

c c 

o re 

1 c 
iS -B 

k_ o 

o re 
c re 

F = 
c -o 

TC 0 

re o 

CL O 

S *■ 

0 

^ re 
0 o 

2 •= 
0 0 
—> ■> 

0 re 
0 2 

2 m 

re Q 
o-^ 
0 Z 


0 
0 -o 
rc c 
h- _re 

2 0 

0 Q. 

5 o 

5 « 
0 > 
0 0 

0 ^ 
X) 2 

0 ^ 

o ~ 

re 2 
0 > 

0 E 

CL O 

E - 

0 8 
o re 

0 LO 

2 10 

> "M" 

o ^ 

Q. ° 

O 0 

LU O 
C /5 "o 
X c 
— re 

M c 


0 

N 

3 

re 

3 

0 

-o 

o 

c 

re 

JD 

>S 0 


X) 

re 

0 

o 

o 

c 

0 

5 


re 
o 

k. 

>» 
re 

$ 
0 
0 
re 
re 
o 

2 0 
re _c 
o 

0 = 

ra-g 

0 re 


re 


0 


0 

X 3 0 

2 13 
O X) 
0 C 

o 2 


0 0 CL O) 

■i= ? 0 B 
0-0 0 — 
2 O 2 0 


-O 
0 
0 
o 

CL 

— 2 re 

0X0 


0 

'0 


re 

$ 

0 

0 

re 


November 2015 


4-107 


NUREG-2168 




Impact Category Levels Impact Category Levels 
for the NRC-Authorized for Construction and 

Resource Area Comments _ Construction _ Preconstruction 

Water-Related Impacts 


Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


0 

V) 


< 

CO 


< 

CO 


c/5 

0 

.x 

03 

E 

0 

CO 

o 

LU 

CO 

Q_ 

CD 


CD 

CD 

C 

L_ 

CD 

> 


X 
c 03 

c 0 
O 0 

CD 

0 

0 o 
£ c 

o 2 
0 0 
- O 

£ ^ 
2 03 


CD 


CD 

CD 


c E 


£ =5 -o 


CD 

X 

g 0 Q_ 

•° $ C 

>> ° o 
id 

E j- c 

CD CD 

C o 

° £ 

X c 

C $ 

o 0 ~ 
© o 

-t—> >4— 1_ 

0 O ^ 


0 

k- 

0 

0 

0 


cr 

0 

i_ 

ro 

$ 

_0 

0 

Q 

0 

x 

o 

0 

0 
-4—* 

0 

c 

x 

0 

o 

0 

l_ 

X 

0 


0 

0 


0 

-2 0 
XI -X 
0 0 
.2 0 

<3 o 

"8 to 
5 £ 


x 

c 

0 


0 
o 
0 CC 


x o 


0 

l_ 

CD 

<: 

0 

0 

a 


i_ CD 
0 C 

0 ig 

IS 

o 

-*-• C 

0 c 

I! 

t .2 
0 0 
-F 0 
0 03 

X 
X 
0 
0 0 

If 

0 o 


0 

0 

o 

0 

o 

0 

0 


0 

0 


0 

O 

0 

0 

0 

C 

o 

0 
-4—» 

O 

0 

it= 

0 

0 


c 

0 

o 

E 

0 

0 


0 

0 

0 

0 

O 

0 

CO 


0 

E 

0 

> 

0 

> 


0 "C3 F —. 
0 2 TO 


0 
O 
0 
0 *t= 
£ 0 
5 CO 


< 

CO 


< 

CO 


O •= 
$ 0 • 
0 0 
in 0 

LU 

CO ° 
£ £ 
0 o 

£ 03 
£ X 
0 ^ 


0 


0 g> 
Q. F= 

i_ 0 


0 


0 
-4 —• 

c -O 

03 C 

o 

CL c 
o 

co g 
O 2 

CO 0 
c 

c o 
•2 0 

to X 
CO CD 
CD .2 

■S 0 


0 


O 0 0 "03 
0 "0 

U 

E £ 

0 ^ 
0 > 

co £ 


o 

c 


So 

0 

C 03 
0 

$ => 
0 0 

m "03 
0 £ 

?E 

T3 O 


— — 0 


E .o 


0 0 

X3 X3 
X X 


£ £ co 0 cl <j $ 


0 

o -j= 
*- 0 

§ 0 
> x 


0 

0 

$ 

X 

c 

0 

o 


■g cd 

«S 

O o 
O o) 

I M_ 

^ o 
c 0 
.2 75 
0 £> 
CO *0 


O "g 
CD TO 

E C 

fc-2 

o 
0 

> j- 
0 0 

^3 C 
^ O 
T- o 
' 0 
0 03- 
0 

S ™ 

~ X 
O C 
0 0 
O c 

i -2 

II 

Jr 0 
— c 

3 § 
0 
0 

d o 
"o .2 
0 -Q 

8 03 

8 I 

~ X 
O 0 
0 -2 
Jr TO 
0 2= 

o'8 

O «x: 


0 

0 

X 


C £ 
0 _ 

>*| 
Ql 5 

0 X3 
^ £ 

I? 

Q. -0 
^ 0 

X X 
O F 


0 

03 ^ 
•2 <; 


o 
■c 

O 
CL 
Cl 
— 0 
0 0 

C 


o 

si 

CL 


- CL 


0 


0 0 
CL 


0 

X 

0 

0 

k_ 

o 

c 

o 

o 


0 

X 

E 

0 

E 

x 

0 


0 

o 

0 

0 


o 

0 

TD 

C 

o 


0 

0 ^ 
O 0 

o 

0 5 

-4^ 


0 


8 G 
0 "C 


0 


g E 

T3 g 
_0 £ 

8 c 
.E o 

131 
£ 03 
O 0 
X 0 
Cl oo 

0 ^ 
c c 
o o 


o 
0= 
i= 0 

o g> 

O 0 
C X 

0 o 
o E 
4= o 

W £ 
03 0 


II 

0 o 
0 0 

? C 
0 -2 
0 g 
^ E 

"g 0 

L- i— 


0 


0 


E o 

CD -q 

£ 0 
! § 


o 


0 
0 
E 03 

l_ 

0 X 
C X 
O 0 
O 0 


So 

c Jr 

g 0 

X 03 .2 03 
0 5 0 X 


0 ~ 
^ c 

O) 0 

c 


< 

CO 


< 

CO 


c 

g 

0 

0 0D 

v 2 0 

^ > 
0 

_ X 

£ c 
0 c 
O 0 
O _0 

SI 

— X 
0 0 
0 75 
tr c 
> “ 
•-0 0 
O .-F 
TO CO 

§o 

~ LU 
o CO 
E Ql 


.2 x 

.2 § 
~ X 
0 > O 

E o x 
TO m 
C 0 
7 or 

E e ~ 
iS x 'o 

o 5 03 

o -Q .E 

h- *_r X 

O c •= 
03 g X 


0 

0 

CD 

C 

0 


0 
0 

§ 75 

0 X 

m £ 
0 


0 0 
> > 


0 

03 3 

O CT 


0 

0 


a: 

0 


0 


0 F 
n “ E 


0 0 
C X 

8 0 
X 0 
c C 

X 

c c 
2 0 
^3 E 

Z3 O 

L_ 

0 0 

§ 1 

o > 

03 0 
03 t 

f 8 


0 

0 o CD 
.2 5 .2 
2 0-3 
^ 03 x 

2 x 0 
03 C 0 
t_ 0 0 

> £ 0 
X 0 (- 
0 X t 

C 0 0 
- 0 2 
8 E 0 
£ 0 

5 j= 2 

0 2 *- 
x ’5 Y 

0|| 
F5 TO 

0)^8 E 

J . 2 to 
if o x 

0 o -F 

.2 0 
x 0 ±= 


o 

0 


0 
O 

.2 0 
0 0 

I] 

-E CD 

8 | 
■F 0 
> - 
■-F 0 
O O 
0 0 

-i 

CD 

73 ^ 
0 

LJ - 

X g 

c £ 

0 H- 

I -2 

8 2 
0 0 
0 

O 0 


0 


0 - C5 
‘t 0 0 
TO X O 

0 ~ g 
© 2 -°. 

£ iG O 
o > 
O 0 0 

til 

Si 1 

CT r7 0 
X 0 F 
C 0 0 
TO 0 0 

^X £ 
*r c i_ 
2 TO TO 
TO 0 

0 0 C 

ad 
C 0 
0 0 0 
£ X O 

X ° 3 
0—0 
■° o 2 

0 ° I- 

C 0 03 
03 0 | 

t| i 

0 c TO 
CT E t 
TO O to 
2 0 
0 t 0 
-2 o x 


o p 


O 


11 

1 5 
rv 03 
LJ o 

U. TO 

0 i= 
"2 TO 

<5 co 


NUREG-2168 


4-108 


November 2015 





Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


~a 

0 

3 

C 

c 

o 

o 


CN 

CM 

■ 

_0 

.Q 

ro 

I- 


C/5 

qj "U 

a; to 
-> c 
> o 

I ‘o 

O) 3 

CD i. 


CO 

c 

~ o 

o O 

s *- 

£- o 
E *- 


CO "O 

0 0 

> n 

_l o 

> £ 

l< 

£> u 

to 01 

o z 


o 

to 

a 


c 
o 

O 
D 

k. 

(/) 

o 

0 CJ 

£ 


E o 
_ 


0 

•*-> 

c 

a 


O 


<u 

o 

o 

o 

CO 

0 

01 


< 

cd 


< 

CO 


c 42 
O c 
•— E 05 

Cl T3 

-£00 

° 0 O 
-o o £ 
c ® 

CD O 0 

' o ° 

C/5 -Q CD 

§ | E 

0 - 

^ w "O 

^ 0 o 


0 


05 

$ 

§.° 

05 


05 


O 

L_ 

_ o _ 
ro X cd 


CD 


* 05 


o 

05 

§ c 

t — “ 


05 

_Q 


C/5 .n 
. > 

go 

TJ 

03 O) 
i- C 
05 ^ 

0 — 
n O 
C/5 _Q 

0 05 

CD c 

D T3 
C/5 -q 
05 

0 C/5 

O c 

-b 0 

o 

o 32 

05 0 

c o 


_TO 

2 o 

H 

2 T5 

“3 ^ 

_Q CD 

C/5* ^ 

CL CD 

^ O 

CQ CL 

O 0 

05 

o -o 

3 05 
0 N 

£ TO 
0 C5 


05 


_ 

■o P-c 

-n .E o 

Cl _ 0 

° Q5 L= 
O n; ^ 

^ > *° 

CD S C 

-C 05 0 
~ TD . 
0 a5 co 
-g 05 

~ 5 0 

> — CD 
~ O 0 
o C — 

?s t 

.2 (7) 0 

“02 
2 LU o 
to W Q. 
CD _ 

8 05:2 

-C r- 

05 

CD 03 O 
05 Q_ 
C 


CD "o 

o 0 

05 CD o 

| °? H. 

$ 2 x 
O CD 0 

X E 0 

O i- 


C/5 


CD 


0/ O 
05 Q_ _ 
- Q5 


0^0 


05 


o’ 05 

i o 2 
“ 8 . 


CD 

0 

°I 

o -c 

0 o 

05 "2 

£ £ 

- 05 

8 &. 

< £ 
o 

1- o 
8 * 
2 c 

0 05 

-a E 

•O 05 


0 _ 

O c 

CD 


05 ^ 
05 0 

c c 

05 '0 
C CD 
05 -Q 


o 
o 

cr T3 
05 Q5 


c 

o 

o 

o 

1 _ 

0 

c 

o 

o 

05 


1 ° 
$ o 


CD 
$ 
■O 
Cl C 
O 

o 


1_ c 

° o 

fo o 

ti 

0 


05 


C 

o 

o 

o 

O 


45 - CD 

0 E O 
0 05 CD 

c '% ■o 

8 o rc 

CD 1 - CD 

■o 

CD 5 O 

o 5 x 

1—2 0 
05 _Q 0 
“ CD 'L= 

2 §: 


i— 05^5 

L. 

05 

03 

$ 

■o 

c 

Z3 

o 

6 


CD 

§ 

■o 
c 
o 
2 5 

05 £ 


05 


0 

"CD 


5 05 

42 c 
8.2 
Q- 0 

E X3 
05 

?E 

•- 0 
05 
"CD 

P 

■° z 

O 

0 "D 

- c 

"O 03 
05 0 
O Q_ 
O <=: 


0. 

LU 

Q 


03 

O 

O' 

u_ 

05 

03 

$ 

•o 

c 

o 

o 

05 

o 

0 

o 

CD 

CL 

E 


o 

CD 

a 

E 


UJ 

I— 

< 

01 

LU 

Q 

O 


LU 

I- 

< 

CL 

LU 

Q 

O 


CD CD .b 0 S 


03 

o 

o 

a 

UJ 


$ 

05 

C 

CD 

05 

C 

ig 

’5 

JD 


■o 

05 

TO 

O 

o 

0 

0 

TO 

TO 

5 

TO 

_C 

■O 

c 

TO 

05 


O C 
05 0 
b: t 1 
05 n 
05 

JD 
TO 


0 


.. N 

0 0 TO 

O^O 
C CD 


TO 0 


0 


0 


TO O 

I? 

O 0 
> 0 
> CL 
0 X 
~ 0 
CD 0 

0 - 0 
LU O 
CD c 
0- 5 

o 
o 


TO 

0 

c 

0 

Q. 

E 

o 

o 

■O 

0 

0 

o 

CL 

o 


0 


CD 

0 

2 

3 

o 

CD 

0 

Q: 

"0 

c 

42 

.0 


c 

o 


0 

o 

c 

TO 

X3 


0 


0 

0 

o 


0 
O 

£ 

TO Q. 

O- E 

0 0 
5 £ 
o _ 

CL i- 

- 2 
03 St 
05 2 

11 


42 

0 §. 

i.i 

2 0 

0 b 
0 TO 
*- 05 
-D 

| E 

0 = 

$ .2 

°I 

I §. 

1 8 

TO O 


*0 

c 

TO 


< 

CD 


< 

CD 


0 

_> 

O 

> 

.2 0 


05 ~0 


~o 

0 


5 5 1 
D O O) 

5 ^ 

■° £ 
o 

L. 

— O 

0 c 

0 -~ 

0 E 

TO *^ 

0 TO 
TO . 

0 *2 
0 0 

O N 
O *TO 

O a 
0 O 
0 — 

o ^ 

'L= TO 
TO 
D 

O' c 
03 E 
C 05 
O 


0 
0 

■o E 

-2 05 
TO 0 

O 2: 
2 TO 
_ 8 .2 
03^ § 
o o 


T3 TO "O 
. > >. 
05 O -C 

.EEc 

= 0 


0 

0 

05 

C 


c -~ 

- c 

r 0 

05 C 03 
TO 

E 


0 


o 


o 

Q. 


0 
0 _Q 

2 "O 

a. 2 

.1 1 


TO 0 

.■t; cl 

-Q u. 
TO o 

^ >. 
O CD 

U_ 

O 
Cl 

E 

0 


% ? 


c 

o 

TO . 
C ^ 

05 = 

E ? 

■o cr 
0 i_ 
0 0 

0* ^ 

E $ 

0 c 


TO 


0 x: 


TO 'O C 

g o 0 
0 o p 
>.E o 


— TO 


CD 

O 


0 

0 

£ 


0 

0 

2 

3 

o 

0 

0 

Cc 


TO 

3 

D“ 


~ 0 
c £ 
0 > 


0 

05 

C 

TO 


< O 

CD 


UJ 

h- 

< 

01 

LU 

Q 

O 


LU 

I- 

< 

2 m 


CD 


a 

o 


0 TO 

£ 3 
?! 
SS, 

05 0 m 
-X > i2 
n 05 0 
> > 

> o C73 

E x -2 
0 2 
0 c — 

-| | 5 

^ 'E? 

(D TO 
-£5 05 

-o .2 


0 a) 

-C x: 

TO 0 
- 0 

CD o 
> "O 


TO 


0 

TO 

0 


O 

TO 

TD 

0 

TO 

0 

L_ 

05 

C 


o 

JD 

'o 

0 
-»—< 

0 

TO 

CL 

E 


o 

o 


0 

-O 

TO 

o 


0 

E 

E 
o 
0 

i_ 

0 

•O ^ 

c 0 

TO § 

0 ' C 
05 O 

II 


TO 
0 
O 

c 
o 
0 
0 
TO TD 
Cl C 

E 03 

0 


0 

c 

o 

£ 


LU 


0 

$ 

O 


0 


o 

X2 


o 

0. 


Q -' 55 .y -c 

0 c £ 0 

E ’> c -o 

o ‘C 0 C 
0 "O -Q TO 


TO 
0 
0 
>« 

42 £ 


0 

c 


0* 0 
■2 0 


, 0 


0 

CD 

a 

E 

0 

E 

o 

c 

o 

0 

0 

o 

‘0 

o 

CD 


0 


3 o 
5g 

CD in 

2 TO 
O 1 - 


< 

01 

LU 05 

a ,E 
O O 
2 8 

> $ 
TO 0 
JZ c 

>, o 

II 

o 


.2 c 
0 .2 

~ T3 
0 "O 
T3 TO 


0 

0 

TO 

CL 

E 

"to 

0 

‘0 

>1 


November 2015 


4-109 


NUREG-2168 





Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


*o 

0> 

3 

_C 

c 

o 

o 


CN 

CM 

• 

Tf 

o 

A 

0 


0 

0 ~0 

> C- _ 
0 ro c 

-J c .2 

> o o 
O ts 2 

O) n -m 

0 L 1/1 


ro w o 

O c 8 

o a? 
o O jr 
ro . Q. 

£■ O 

E - 


T3 

0 


_0 

m — 

> N 

5 O C 
>,£.2 
o3 o 

0)5 3 

“ui 
0 a: $2 

O z § 

t) ® <-> 

ft 

E o 

“ L_A_ 


(/) 

*-> 

c 

0) 

E 

E 

o 

o 


0 

o 

L_ 

3 

o 

0 

0 


C 

o 

CD 

0 

l_ 

0 


LU O 


< 

CO 


cO 0 

o 

V4— 

0 

c 

0 

JO 


1 o 

-SE 

O 0 0) 
JO 0 
"^CO 


— Q 


CO 


Q. _ 

0 '£ 

O o 

x .y 

0 ro 
(/> 0 

•g O 

b £ 

0 T3 

0 0 

— y 

0 a= 

. 0 


LU 


c 

o 

0 

0 

l_ 

o 

0 


< 

r£ "o 

LU C 

O 0 

o O 

0 


0 

c 

o 


c 

o 

'cn 

0 

i_ 

0 


CL „ 

0? C* 

o 


LU o 


< 

CO 


< o O 

s r ~ 

CO 0 
o 
j— 

0 

c 

0 

JO 


<1 I 

Sso 
Q 2 E 
O 0 o 

5 D 0 
—' CO 


O 

X 

0 


CO 


0 
0 0 

■g O 

o 2 
cd 

0 03 

8 ™ 

— y 

0 5t= 
. 0 
o -b 


c 

g 

0 

iu 2 
l— o 
< 


0 


cc 

LU 

Q 


TO 
C 

_ 0 
O o 

St: 

0 


0 

c 

o 



0 
0 
\ _ 

0 

> 


0 

o 



O 

JO 

JO 

o 

c 

o 

o 

0 

TO 

C 

0 

0 

JO 

TO 

0 

0 

O 

TO 

JO 

$ 

TO 

c 

JO 

CD 

TO 

LU 

i_ 

TO 

> 

0 

JO 

=5 

o 

i 

< 

nr 

0 

O 

JO 

TO 

c 

o 

> 

0 

5 

o 

L±. 

LU 
r t 

0 

CL CO 

•x- Li 

0 

L— 

CD 

0 

0 

c 



CO -Q 
„ 0 
O 0 
lu .y 

CO o 
CL C 


0 O 
CL > 0 
c n it 
.E 0 0 


0 o 
I- LU 



0 


0 o 

>* 

c 03 
0 c 


F E 

? <13 

E O 

o 0 
2 .2 

E £ 

> 0 

O 0 

C 3 

O CO 

LU -> 


NUREG-2168 


4-110 


November 2015 






Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


■o 

0 

3 

Z 

■*-> 

C 

o 

O 


CM 

CM 

■ 

^t 

_0 

-Q 

ro 

I- 


0 



0 

X 


> 

c 


0 

0 

c 

_l 

c 

0 

>* 

k_ 

0 

*43 

O 

O 

X 

0 

3 

u. 

05 

D 

■4^ 

0 


(/) 

*-■ 

4 -* 

c 

0 

0 

0 

u 

c 

w 

0 

+-> 

0 

0 

O CJ 


0 

x. 

X 

X 

O 


E 




c 

o 


0 -Q 

m <15 

> .y 

0 E- 

_l o 

o < o 

O) i 3 

® o -fc 

0X2 

u z O 
o ® o 

|r 

E o 

™ u_ 


0 
■<—' 
C 
0 

E 

E 

o 

o 


LU 

I— 

< 

x 

LU 

Q 

O 


0 

o 

3 

o 

CO 

0 

X 


co 


LU 

I- 

< 

x 

LU 

Q 

o 


CO 


C/5 
0 

|z 


0 


0 


u 

L. 

o 

0 

X 

0 

0 

CO 

> 

0 

0 

i _ 

0 


0 


-o 

c 

0 

0 


0 


0 CT3 
2 $ 
-t TO 
C 0 

0 O 

O 

• 5 = 0 
0 ■£ 

!i 

0 5 
> c 
To .2 
0 


0 
t_ 

. 03 
O 0 

< 03 

5 I 

II 

c c 

Q) — 
0 0 
0 0 

Q_ ’•£ 
0 


0 
L _ 

0 

0 


x — 

C 


x 0 


c 

o 

•*—» 

0 
-♦—< 

3 

0 

C 

o 

o 

LU 

o 

< 

CO 

D 

0 


O O 

0- -O 

X 0 

co 15 

0 g- 
o E 
£ o 

O ° 

0 

c 0 
2 11 
’0 O 
> X 

0 Z 

0 

TO 0 


X 
O 

- X 
£ 2 
O 

.2 1 

O 5 o 

O (/) 

TO *-■ 

0 2 

_c 0 

O Jt= 

0 _ 

O TO 
Z g 
. > 

6 i 

i? 

C0 0 

0 ■TO 
2 0 
TO TO 


2 O 

O * 
2 0^ 
05 ~ < 
0 TO o 

3 o 

> 0 

S» 

sis 
0^-2 
LU ^ 05 

w ^ .2 

X TO o 
O 

12 o 

3 CC 
O TO 


0 


TO > - 

0 > X 
0 >» — 
• 4 = 0 0 

> 2 o 
0-^0 

ro £ f 

TO* TO TO 

35 ^ 2 

E 0 ^ 

E-| « 
O 0 o 
' 4 ~‘ c 
TO 2 o 

g. TO 3 

O O o 

c.2~ 

0 x .2 


x 5 = 


< 

CO 


< 

CO 


o 

’c 
o 
> 

0 

O -c 
0 ~ 
c 

0 E 

0 TO 

0 ~ 

51 

"TO TO 
0 !2 
0 c 
-0 0 
— TO 
0 X 
2 0 

2 > 

TO 0 

TO _c 

O TO 
2 .2 
X "tC 
0 0 
O TO. 

O O 

0 Q. 

0 CD 
0 
0 

$ 3 

^ O 

't .2 O 
z ~ UJ 
h-Eco 

cT5 .b X 


o 

CM 


-o 

c 

0 0 
.2 "0 S TO 
v_ >- 3 O 
0 3 0 0 
0 — to a 
.TO 3 0 C 

X O X S 


T3 

TO 0 
0 

0 E 

TO — 

05 >. 

0 

l. — 

0 3 

O 0 

0 TO 
X X 
0 0 

c 2 

.2 cl 

0 CL 
0 0 

E TO 
0 £ 

C £ 

!'* 
TO O 
C) 

TO C 

E to 


c E 
0 o 


§ TO 

O 2 

w 0 

.L: 0 

< E 

C XI 

TO -= 
•— 0 
■TO C 
E o 
^ 0 

0 TO 

E 2 

be 

0 


CO to 
O N 

? E 

c 

E 

o 


CO 

co 

t 

0 

X 

X 


E 

0 

05 

o 


0 

CO 

"O 05 

TO S 
0 o 

cT Z 

0 H 


Q. 

O 


— E ~ X 


E 

L_ 

X 

*0 

c 

o 


0 


0 

x: 


0 D 
m TO 
2 TO 
T 5 to 

2 O 

3 ~ 

O TO 

$ E 
O 5 

LU 0 
CO TO 

x E 


0 


0 


X5 

■o 

0 

c 

^0 

■O 


O 

0 2 

O' £ 

'— c 

0 o 

TO E 

2 0 

EE 

x 

n 

TO | 

O CL 

2 E 

N T3 

0 to 
X O 

fiS 

TO LU 
2 CO 
0 x 
■o . 
TO O 
^ 0 _0 

00 CO < 


o 

LO 

n 

0 

x 


•o 

c C 

0 o 

0 o 

§5 

ts 0 

^ c 

RS 

«E 

0 

.ti c 

TO O 

2 g 


0 

c 

o 

o 

0 


05 

c 


< 

CO 


< 

CO 


o 

o 

0 

■O 

L— 

0 

-O 

c 

0 


0 -t 

c 0 

.2 o 

0 

0 0 

TO g. 

1-i 

■° 0 

0 x: 
> C 
S 05 
05 -5 

£ X 


0 TO 

d 0 

•E I 
< JE 



X 

(— 


0 

0 " 

c 

O 




L— 

0 


CO 

0 

0 

T3 


3 

O 


X 


CD 

c 

3 

c 

TO 

X 

c 

0 

*0 

0 

X 

.2 

\ _ 

3 

LU 

CO 

X 

E 

0 

L— 

"0 

c 

0 

0 

X 

L 

3 

0 

c 

0 

TO 

'c 

0 
/— 

C/) 

0 

0 

0 

2- 

C 

O 


o 

3 


.Q 

3 

X 


-O 
0 

0 
o 
o 
0 
0 
0 

3 

X "a 
to 0 2 

TO c TO 
cr O E 


0 c 
c o 

8 2 

E 0 

E | 

S 3 

£? 


2 12 
3 
o 
$ 


0 

0 

3 = 


0 c 

1 E 

0 "O 

353 

0 o 
0 ^ 

E 2 

C 

05 > 

2 TO 

05 0 


8.2 

-- -4—< 

o‘I 

2 ^ 

‘■o 

TO 2 

c E 

o o 

C 3 

0 0 
53 c 
c O 
0 TO 

o 2 

X Cl 


TO - 0 

§ 2 ■£ 
= — o 

Ec ^ 

TO O E 
TO 0 0 
O ^5 u 
<->" CL 

8 T5 E 

-B g o- 

05 „ TO 

> to x: 

w 0 

?o S 
2 -r; 0 

E c o 

TO t to 

2 >_ Q. 

£ o E 
TO C - 

0 R 2 

v Q- — 

i-0 0 

O C 0 

5 0 -C 
^ _ 

2 TO TO 
O 2 05 

3 -Q 2 
i: C O 

TO TO =6 
o 0 2 

O C/5 C 
C O TO 
o c Z 


X o 

E °- 
o 


0 
TO TO 
05 3 
C 3 
73 C 

3 $ 
TO $ 

C 


C 

0 

0 

•0 

0 

o 


o m 

c 

>> (U 


0 


0 0 
0 1- 
TO O 

E 0 

TO 0 
0 '-EE 
c > 
.2 TO 

0 03 
■C T5 
O 0 

0 2 
C 0 

0 V 
X c 

X ° 


E 

0 • 

> 2 

_ 2 TO 

0 X TO 

° E E 

x — .E 
0 x _ 
000 
o 0 
x o c 

0X0 

X 2 O 


0 


X X 
O 2 


c 

0 


33 0 
•-= c 
0 o 
3 o 

CT X 
.!= C 
0 0 


o 

TO §-8 

0-3 0 
0 0 
D c 2 
0 3 

55 | | 

p _05 > 

•= Q. 0 

E E 
E — to 

TO E 0 

-Cl CD X 
X TO O 
3 £ £ 
o CD 0 


TO 0 
■5“ 

05 

o a 

2 E 

II 

c CD 
O 0 

Z X 


November 2015 


4-111 


NUREG-2168 







Impact Category Levels Impact Category Levels 
for the NRC-Authorized for Construction and 

Resource Area _ Comments ___ Construction _ Preconstruction 

Radiological Doses to site-preparation workers would be within the NRC exposure SMALL SMALL 


Construction Impacts at the Proposed Site 


£ 1 
> 0> S 

0 £ co 

f i I 

g h § 

o u § 
o o. y 
T_ o to 

- co >= 

C- O D 

£ ro 9- 

Q. <0 
13 — 
O V) 

o „ 


CD 

0 


o o 
5 >> 

as 

0 o 

S °° 
o 

8 ^ 

Q. ~ 
O "§ 

_ TO 
TO CD 
0 0 
C O 
CD X 
0 0 
0 (f> 
TO >- 
0 
CO 

Is 


CO 

+-> 

o 

CD 

a 

E 


CD 

0 

X 


< 
co 


< 

CO 


0 

C 

0 

CD 

C 


13 

-Q 

C 

0 


co 
0 
i _ 

13 

CO 

o 

CL 

X 

0 

0 

o 

03 

_o 

o 

TO 

0 


to 0 
u E 


TO 

0 

0 

i_ 

0 

C 

0 

03 

CO 

0 

to 

0 


03 0 
C JO 

£ T3 

O -5 

SI 

■S'? 

T3 To 
TO fA 

So 

TO CO 
TO 

E c 

0 TO 

-Q co 
]g o 
TO O 

0 TO 

c75 0 

CO 
D 


^ to o 

c O 2 

5 w 0 

6 °| 
0 > 

C« n TO 
c 2 TO 

.2 w © 
ra d U 
Z3 "O 0 
03 c r 
0 0-^ 

-^1 cn£ 
0 c ^ 

4l 8 

,® ra c 

U- -TO 0 


0 

O 

o 

0 

0 

0 

03 

TO 

c 

0 

"O 

"o 

O' 


o 

UJ 

co 

Q_ 

0 

_c 


0 
Q. 

TO 0 
.E jo 


0 gj 
o 
CO 


0 


o 


c 
0 

t_ 
i_ 

_ o 
o 

TO 0 

-TO TO 
TO O 
03 

1 — v_ 

0 CL 

O 05 

8..E 

i_ CO 
TO 'X 
_0 0 

11 


0 


TO © 
-0 £ 
TO o 
QQ 0 

i_ 

0 0 
> JO 

cx ^ 

0 O 

i ^ 

TO © 
0 0 
Q © 

E-g 

too 

Q_ co 
LU • 

Z 0 

. TO 

sl 

CD w 
Z >> 


c o Q- 

-ii 

£ o ° 

0 ‘J= 0 

„ o 0 

> 03 C 
-00 

O ^ “ 

R c o 
° 0 o 

£ 0 ^ CU _ Q, 

^ ~ fl3 03 "m TO 

0 >- 
C_) 0 
TO Q- 

TO 0 

Q_ 

E 

8 -o 
E 8 


1 0 
TO" O- 

0 T 
0 

0 

0 0 0 
0 T— 

0 ID 
$ CNJ 


0 

£ £ 

8 ° 
5 "O 
0 TO 
TO 0 
0 0 
0 -b 

^ 03 

>N .E 
|_8 
£ Jj 

jo .Z 
Z TO 
■8 TO 
© T3 
T3 © 

0 P 5 
^ 0 

i TO 
0 TO 

CL TO 

g»? 
.E 0 

0 0 


0 

CO 


c 
o 

."TO ' TO 
-5 O 0 

O' CO p 

= =5 E 

TO^ © 

8 do 


o c 
■O TO 

"O 


0 


0 
0 

Q. 0 
TO P 
TO 


C O 

o TO 
~ Q_ 
0 0 
.E TO 

I 8 

LU $ 
0 c 

03 JD 
0 Q- 

" § 
TO •— 

el 

£ I 

TO 

£| 
>A TO 

© 75 
E Q. 

0 i_ 
0 

^ 0 

n 

? o 
— 0 
•E < 

TO . 
0 

TO E 

8. ^ 
.9- cl 

0 E 

0 0 

TO 0 

TO £ Z 


0 TO 
0 


0 


0 

l_ 

0 

C 

0 

03 


0 

0 


O 

■ 4 —> 

0 

0 
03 
0 0 
C 0 0 
0 ^ JO 

^ 0 £ 
o o o 
"*”* rrr O 

8 

0 o 

CL TO 
^ TO 


C 

o 


0 

JO 


0 

0 


a 

o 

to 

C 

o 

o 


TO 

c 

0 


o 
0 
0 
0 
E = - 

C 2 
TO 0 
— > 
0 

03 LU 


O 
0 
CL 

i 8 


0 O 
£ 3 


O -Q TO 00 


0 c 
JC o 


03 

o .E 


E ^ c 


TO 


O 

0 


03 

° a 

.2 E 
■o — 
0 0 
i_ — 

c TO 

ii 


C TO 
O 0 
•j= c 
o o 

0 ' 4-4 

■O o 
0 Q. 
0 O 

§.&. 
O TO 

Q- 

0 ^ 
£ 0 

E ■£ 

0 0 
c 
o 


0 

C m 

o i5 

■J= 0 
0 CL 
0 o 
cl a. 

0 0 
E 
o 
o 
c 


§ 

$ - 
TO O 

o Z 
Z o 

■C c 

| E 
E T3 

o 0 

2 3 = 


0 


0 


0 


2 0 
CL C 

.i€ 

0 0 
E o 
0 0 

> Q. 

"TO E 
0 .E 

o 0 
c 0 

si 

0 

0 

0 0 
£ CL 

C E 

0 0 
E 2 
0 

0 

0 2 

o 

TO? >, 
0 0 
o E 

0 0 

13 i_ 
-3) 0 


0 

c 0 
0 
E 
c 
o 

.i= 0 
> J= 
C — 
LU 0 


c 
o 

^0 
3 
Q. 
_ O 
C CL 

5 7S 


z = 


c 
0 

Is 

■0 .> 
§ TO 
0 


o TO i= 


0 

c 

o 


C (U 
0 0C 
£ c 
0 0 
cr E 


0 


0 


NUREG-2168 


4-112 


November 2015 








5.0 OPERATIONAL IMPACTS AT THE PROPOSED SITE 


This chapter examines environmental issues associated with operating a new nuclear power 
plant at the PSEG Power, LLC and PSEG Nuclear, LLC (PSEG) Site as described by the 
applicant, PSEG. Although an early site permit (ESP) would not authorize construction or 
operation of a nuclear power plant, as part of its application for an ESP, PSEG submitted an 
Environmental Report (ER) that discusses the environmental impacts of station operation for an 
initial 40-year period assuming the future issuance of a combined license (COL) (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280). In their evaluation of operational impacts, the staffs of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (hereafter known as the 
“review team") relied on operational details supplied by PSEG in its ER and its responses to 
NRC Requests for Additional Information (RAIs). 

This chapter is divided into 13 sections. Sections 5.1 through 5.12 discuss the potential 
operational impacts on land use, water, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, socioeconomics, 
environmental justice, historic and cultural resources, meteorology and air quality, 
nonradiological health effects, radiological health effects, nonradioactive waste, postulated 
accidents, and applicable measures and controls that would limit the adverse impacts of station 
operation during an assumed 40-year operating period. Section 5.13 provides a summary of 
operational impacts. 

In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51 (10 CFR Part 51- 
TN250), impacts have been analyzed, and a significance level of potential adverse impacts 
(i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned by the review team to each impact 
category. In the area of socioeconomics related to taxes, the impacts may be considered 
beneficial and are stated as such. The review team’s determination of significance levels is 
based on the assumption that the mitigation measures identified in the ER or activities planned 
by various state and county governments, such as infrastructure upgrades, would be 
implemented. Failure to implement these upgrades might result in a change in significance 
level. Possible mitigation of adverse impacts is also presented, where appropriate. A summary 
of these impacts is presented in Section 5.13. 

5.1 Land-Use Impacts 

Sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 contain information regarding land-use impacts associated with 
operating a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site. Section 5.1.1 discusses land-use 
impacts at the site and in the vicinity of the site. Section 5.1.2 discusses land-use impacts at 
offsite areas, especially the proposed causeway alignment. 

5.1.1 The Site and Vicinity 

Onsite land-use impacts from operating a new nuclear power plant are expected to be minimal. 
Of the 430 ac disturbed in building a new plant (excluding the proposed causeway), only 225 
ac (27.5 percent of the 819-ac PSEG Site) would be occupied by permanent structures and 
supporting facilities during operations. Of this 225-ac area, 70 ac would be permanently 


November 2015 


5-1 


NUREG-2168 



Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


disturbed for the power block (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Section 4.1 discusses the land-use 
impacts of this permanent land disturbance. 

Onsite land-use impacts associated with operating a new nuclear power plant would result 
primarily from the deposition of solids from cooling tower operation (impacts of the heat 
dissipation system, including deposition, are discussed in Section 5.3). PSEG has stated the 
cooling towers would be located north of the power block as shown in Figure 2-2. There is the 
potential for fogging, icing, salt drift, and noise to occur from cooling tower operations 
(NRC 2013-TN2654). However, a review of the cooling tower operations presented in the 
PSEG ESP application indicates that land uses would not be noticeably affected (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280). Adjacent land uses north, west, and east of the proposed cooling tower location are 
the Artificial Island Confined Disposal Facility, the Delaware River, and coastal marsh, 
respectively. There are no residences, farmland, or other developed land uses within 2.8 mi of 
the PSEG Site, so only minor salt deposition impacts to land uses on the site or in the vicinity 
are expected (see Section 5.3). 

As discussed in Section 4.1.1, operating a new nuclear power plant on the PSEG Site would be 
consistent with existing land uses at Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) and Salem 
Generating Station (SGS) and with current land-use zoning (Industrial) in Lower Alloways Creek 
Township (LACT 1999-TN2416). Further, the New Jersey Department of Environmental 
Protection (NJDEP) Division of Land Use Regulation has determined the PSEG ESP application 
is consistent with New Jersey Rules on Coastal Zone Management (see Section 2.2.1). PSEG 
has submitted a petition to the State of New Jersey to expand the existing “Heavy Industry- 
Transportation-Utility Node” on Artificial Island to include the location of a new nuclear power 
plant (PSEG 2012-TN2282) (see Section 2.2.1). 

There are no prime farmlands or farmlands of unique or statewide importance on the PSEG 
Site, and operating a new nuclear power plant on the site would not affect any such farmlands in 
the vicinity. Likewise, there are no lands under Deeds of Conservation Restriction (DCRs) or 
Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) on the PSEG Site, and operating a new plant on the site 
would not affect any of the lands under DCRs or lands in WMAs in the vicinity of the site. 

Any indirect offsite land-use changes in the 6-mi vicinity of the PSEG Site incidental to plant 
operations, such as conversion of land to housing for operations and outage workers, are 
expected to be minor. The analysis of housing impacts in Section 5.4.4 finds sufficient vacant 
permanent housing is available to accommodate the projected demand from workers who would 
operate a new plant. Thus, no substantial offsite land-use impacts in the vicinity are expected 
due to project employment during operations. 

Overall, the land-use impacts of operating a new nuclear power plant on the PSEG Site would 
be minor and would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attributes of existing 
land uses on the site or in the vicinity. Therefore, based on the information provided by PSEG 
and the review team’s independent review, the review team concludes the land-use impacts of 
operating a new nuclear power plant on the PSEG Site would be SMALL. 


NUREG-2168 


5-2 


November 2015 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


5.1.2 Offsite Areas 

Offsite land-use impacts from operating a new nuclear power plant are expected to be minimal 
and primarily associated with the proposed causeway. Of the 69.0 ac disturbed in building the 
causeway, about 45.5 ac would be permanently affected or occupied by permanent structures 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). Section 4.1 discusses the land-use impacts of this permanent land 
disturbance. 

Two land-use-related issues associated with the long-term presence of the causeway would 
result from shading caused by the 50-ft-wide causeway structure and its piers and other support 
structures and automobile traffic on the causeway. The impacts of shading on surface water 
and aquatic resources are discussed in Sections 4.2 and 4.3, and the impacts of automobile 
traffic on water quality, ecological resources, and socioeconomic resources are discussed in 
Sections 4.3 through 4.5. 

Over the operating life of a new plant, periodic maintenance would be required to ensure the 
causeway is in safe operational condition, including storm drainage features. PSEG has stated 
that maintenance activities would include repair and maintenance of the roadway surface and 
catch basins/drainage, lane striping, and periodic management, mowing, and cutting of adjacent 
vegetation (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The land-use impacts of these maintenance activities are 
expected to be minimal. 

As discussed in Section 4.1.2, the section of the proposed causeway from the PSEG property 
north to Lower Alloways Creek is zoned for Industrial Use by Lower Alloways Creek Township 
(LACT 1999-TN2416). However, the section of the causeway from Lower Alloways Creek north 
to Money Island Road is zoned for Conservation by Elsinboro Township, while the section along 
Money Island Road is zoned Rural Residential (Elsinboro 2007-TN2417). Thus, the causeway 
would be consistent with current zoning in Lower Alloways Creek Township, but inconsistent 
with part of the current zoning (i.e., Conservation) in Elsinboro Township. PSEG could request 
a zoning variance from Elsinboro Township to operate the proposed causeway in the area 
zoned for Conservation. 

As discussed in Sections 2.2.1 and 4.1.1, the NJDEP Division of Land Use Regulation has 
determined the PSEG ESP application, including the proposed causeway, is consistent with 
New Jersey’s Rules on Coastal Zone Management. Most of the proposed causeway route 
(21.0 ac of impact) is protected under DCRs held by the State of New Jersey (PSEG 2012- 
TN2282). If these DCRs are released for the causeway to be built (see Section 4.1.2), the 
causeway would not have any adverse impacts on offsite land uses protected under a DCR, 
including those in the Alloway Creek Watershed Wetland Restoration (ACW) Site and Abbotts 
Meadow and Mad Horse Creek WMAs. 

Overall, the land-use impacts of the proposed causeway during operations at a new nuclear 
power plant would be minor and would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important 
attributes of existing offsite land uses. Therefore, based on the information provided by PSEG 
and the review team’s independent review, the review team concludes that the offsite land-use 
impacts of operating a new nuclear power plant would be SMALL. 


November 2015 


5-3 


NUREG-2168 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


5.2 Water-Related Impacts 

This section discusses water-related impacts to the surrounding environment from operation of 
a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site. The primary water-related impacts would be 
associated with the cooling water system for a new plant. Details of the operational modes and 
cooling water systems associated with operation of a new nuclear power plant can be found in 
Section 3.2.2. Secondary water-related impacts would be associated with groundwater 
withdrawals for operating a new plant. 

Managing water resources requires understanding and balancing the tradeoffs among various, 
often conflicting, objectives. In the vicinity of the PSEG Site, these objectives include 
navigation, recreation, visual aesthetics, and a variety of beneficial consumptive water uses. 

The responsibility for regulating water use and water quality is delegated to NJDEP and the 
Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC). 

Water-use and water-quality impacts involved with operating a nuclear power plant are similar to 
the impacts associated with any large thermoelectric power generation facility, and PSEG must 
obtain the same water-related permits and certifications as these other facilities. Permits and 
certifications needed would include the following: 

• Clean Water Act (CWA, 33 USC 1251 et seq. -TN662) Section 401 Certification . This water- 
quality certification would be issued by NJDEP and would ensure that operation of a new 
nuclear power plant would not conflict with State water-quality management programs. This 
certification must be obtained before the NRC could issue a COL to PSEG. 

• CWA (33 USC 1251 et seq. -TN662) Section 402(p) National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System (NPDES) Discharge Permit . This permit would be issued by NJDEP and 
would regulate limits of pollutants in liquid discharges to surface water (point source 
stormwater and wastewater) and construction dewatering. A stormwater pollution 
prevention plan (SWPPP) would be required. 

• CWA (33 USC 1251 et seq. -TN662) Section 404 Permit . This permit would be issued by 
the USACE and would be required for the discharge of any dredged and/or fill material 
during operations into waters of the United States. 

• CWA ( 33 USC 1251 et seq. -TN662) Section 316(a) . This section regulates the cooling 
water discharges to protect the health of the aquatic environment. The scope would be 
covered under the NPDES permit with NJDEP. 

• CWA (33 USC 1251 et seq. -TN662) Section 316(b) . This section regulates cooling water 
intake structures to minimize environmental impacts associated with their location, design, 
construction, and capacity. The scope would be covered under the NPDES permit with 
NJDEP. 

• Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 USC 403 et seq. -TN660) Permit . This 

permit prohibits obstruction or alteration of navigable waters of the United States and would 
be issued by the USACE for dredging activities that may be needed during operations. 

• Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 USC 1451 et seq. -TN1243) 

Certification . This concurrence of consistency with the State coastal program’s policies 


NUREG-2168 


5-4 


November 2015 












Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


would be issued by NJDEP. It applies to any activity that is on land, in water or in any 
natural resource, or any activity that affects land use, water use, or any natural resource in 
the coastal zone, if the activity requires a Federal license or permit. 

• Delaware River Basin Compact, Section 3.8, Resolution No. 71-4 (DRBC Res71-4-TN4296) . 

PSEG would comply with the DRBC agreements on surface-water withdrawal from the 
Delaware River (for cooling) and groundwater withdrawals from the aquifer. 

• New Jersey Water Supply Management Act (NJSA 58:1A-a et seq. -TN4295) . Permits 
under this Act would be issued by NJDEP to regulate dewatering, well drilling, and 
groundwater use. 

PSEG would also comply with other applicable regional, state, and local regulations as 
described in its ER (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Section 5.2.1 discusses the hydrologic alterations in surface water and groundwater related to 
operation of a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site. Water-use impacts from operations 
are discussed in Sections 5.2.2.1 and 5.22.2 for surface water and groundwater, respectively. 
Water-quality impacts from operations are discussed in Sections 5.2.3.1 and 5.2.3.2 for surface 
water and groundwater, respectively. Water monitoring during plant operation is discussed in 
Section 5.2.4. The combined impacts of operating a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site 
along with the existing HCGS and SGS, as well as other activities in the surrounding 
environment, are discussed in Chapter 7 (Cumulative Impacts). 

5.2.1 Hydrological Alterations 

This section discusses the hydrological alterations and the resulting effects from operation of a 
new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site. As stated in Section 4.2.1, site hydrological 
alterations during construction and preconstruction would include a change to the local 
landscape and drainage patterns, which could cause increased runoff or erosion. Hydrological 
alterations to the Delaware River from operations would include increased water withdrawal, 
discharge of cooling water blowdown and wastewater, and maintenance dredging of the intake 
canal. 

During construction and preconstruction, the power block for a new plant would be placed on an 
elevated area, with drainage directed away from the facilities. Modifications to the land surface 
made during preconstruction and construction activities would alter the local hydrology, and 
these alterations would remain during plant operations. A new nuclear power plant would be 
located north of the existing HCGS plant at the PSEG Site. Stormwater runoff from the PSEG 
Site would drain primarily to the Delaware River. A detailed design of retention and holding 
areas has not been determined, but an SWPPP would be in place to manage stormwater runoff 
and prevent erosion. An SWPPP would be required to meet New Jersey Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System (NJPDES) stormwater discharge requirements (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 
Because of the relatively small area that could generate increased runoff compared to the 
drainage area of the Delaware River near the PSEG Site, the increased runoff is not expected 
to noticeably affect the hydrologic conditions in the Delaware River near the PSEG Site. 
Because best management practices (BMPs) would be used as required by NJPDES under the 
SWPPP, and because the additional runoff-generating area is small compared to the drainage 


November 2015 


5-5 


NUREG-2168 





Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


area of the Delaware River near the PSEG Site, the surface-water quality of the river would be 
minimally affected by the land surface modifications at the PSEG Site. 

Land surface modification would also alter groundwater infiltration areas because of the 
increased amount of impervious surface at the PSEG Site, regrading of the site, and the filling of 
some onsite water bodies. These alterations could impact groundwater flow in the alluvium and 
Vincentown aquifers in the vicinity of the site, but the effects are expected to be localized to the 
site. Also, the alluvium and Vincentown aquifers are not used locally as sources of potable 
water, and low-permeability units separate them from the deeper aquifers that supply potable 
water. Therefore, it is likely that water supply and quality in the Wenonah-Mount Laurel aquifer 
and the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy (PRM) aquifer system would be unaffected by the 
hydrological alterations resulting from land surface modifications at the PSEG Site. 

As described in Chapter 3, a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site would withdraw water 
from the Delaware River for the circulating water, service water, and ultimate heat sink (UHS) 
systems. The primary hydrologic alteration from this water use would be the reduction of flow in 
the Delaware River, which could affect both the availability of water for other uses and the 
salinity of the upstream reach of the river. In addition, the intake canal would require periodic 
dredging. The impacts from consumptive water use by a new nuclear power plant are 
evaluated in terms of the estimated reduction in Delaware River flow in absolute and relative 
terms for normal and maximum operational uses and for long-term average flows and low flows 
in the river. These impacts are discussed in Sections 5.2.2 and 5.2.3. 

Plant blowdown and wastewater would be discharged to the Delaware River, with potential 
effects on the thermal characteristics of the river and on water quality. The impacts of plant 
discharges to the Delaware River are evaluated in Section 5.2.3. 

As described in Chapter 3, a new nuclear power plant would withdraw water from the PRM 
aquifer system for those plant systems requiring fresh water. The effect of this groundwater use 
would be a reduction in the hydraulic head in the confined aquifer around the pumping wells. 

With a sufficient reduction in head, the pumping could cause salt water intrusion in the aquifer. 
These impacts are evaluated in terms of the magnitude and extent of the anticipated reduction 
in hydraulic head in Sections 5.2.2 and 5.2.3. 

In summary, the hydrological alterations applicable to operations would be primarily from the 
intake of Delaware River water, the discharge of blowdown water and associated waste streams 
to the river, altered drainage patterns from landscape changes, withdrawal of groundwater from 
the PRM aquifer system, and periodic dredging of the intake canal. 

5.2.2 Water-Use Impacts 

This section describes the potential impacts on surface-water and groundwater uses and users 
resulting from operation of a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site. Information presented 
in PSEG’s ER (PSEG 2015-TN4280), other information obtained by the review team, and 
independent analyses performed by the review team were used to assess the impacts. 


NUREG-2168 


5-6 


November 2015 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


5.2.2 .7 Surface- Water- Use Impacts 

A major concern of the DRBC is preventing salt water intrusion in the upstream regions of the 
Delaware River during a drought. As stated in Section 2.3.2.1, instream flow objectives are in 
place for the Delaware River to maintain the salt line at Delaware River Mile (RM) 98, 
downstream of public water supply intakes on the river. Salt line in the tidal Delaware River is 
defined as the location where the 7-day average chloride concentration equals 250 ppm 
(DRBC 2008-TN2277). Several programs are in place to ensure sufficient freshwater is 
available to prevent upstream salt intrusion from occurring. These programs involve reservoirs 
that can be used to release water to the river during a drought. PSEG has an allocation of 
6,695 ac-ft of storage in the Merrill Creek reservoir to offset the consumptive uses of its existing 
power plants in the region (HCGS, SGS, and Mercer Generating Stations 1 and 2) during a 
drought (PSEG 2015-TN4280). As stated in Section 2.3.1.1, the total storage in the Merrill 
Creek reservoir is 46,000 ac-ft. The DRBC requires releases from the Merrill Creek reservoir 
when the DRBC drought management plan causes the flow objective at Trenton to fall below 
3,000 cfs and the equivalent flow at Trenton falls below 3,000 cfs for two consecutive days 
(MCOG 2003-TN3312). A minimum release of 3 cfs from Merrill Creek reservoir is required at 
all times. In the past, releases from the Merrill Creek reservoir have occurred on four occasions 
(PSEG 2012-TN3313): 

• 41 days between September 13, 1991, and November 22, 1991, with a total release of 
2,001,752,000 gallons (6,143 ac-ft) of water; 

• 11 days between September 16, 1995, and November 1, 1995, with a total release of 
502,988,000 gallons (1,544 ac-ft) of water; 

• 16 days between December 15, 1998, and February 3, 1999, with a total release of 
666,363,000 gallons (2,045 ac-ft) of water; and 

• 37 days between October 29, 2001, and January 25, 2002, with a total release of 
1,658,472,000 gallons (5,090 ac-ft) of water. 

After these periods of release, the reservoir was filled by pumping water over periods of 26, 11, 
27, and 46 days, respectively. The filling periods occurred one to several months after stopping 
the previous releases (PSEG 2012-TN3313). 

The average consumptive water use from the Delaware River for operation of a new nuclear 
power plant at the PSEG Site would be 26,420 gpm (58.9 cfs) (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Water 
withdrawn from the Delaware River is brackish with up to 18 ppt salinity and, therefore, is not fit 
for potable use. The DRBC applies an equivalent impact factor of 0.18 to account for the 
difference between the river water near the PSEG Site and freshwater. This makes the water 
consumption of a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site equivalent to a freshwater 
consumption of 4,756 gpm (10.6 cfs). This equivalent freshwater consumptive use is 0.1 percent 
of the mean annual flow at Trenton, New Jersey, during the historic low water period of 1961 — 
1967 (7,888 cfs), and 0.7 percent of the minimum monthly flow (1,548 cfs, recorded in July 
1965). The total consumptive losses associated with a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG 
Site would be less than 0.01 percent of the tidal flows at the PSEG Site (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

PSEG has not selected a reactor technology for a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site. 
One reactor technology used in the ESP plant parameter envelope (PPE) approach, the 


November 2015 


5-7 


NUREG-2168 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Advanced Passive 1000 (API 000), may require surface-water withdrawals from the Delaware 
River that would cause the currently permitted PSEG allocation of 6,695 ac-ft in the Merrill 
Creek reservoir to fall short by 465 ac-ft or 6.9 percent (PSEG 2015-TN4280). When PSEG 
selects a reactor technology, PSEG would (1) revise the consumptive water use allocations of 
other plants it owns and supports through its storage allocation in Merrill Creek reservoir or 
(2) acquire additional storage from the existing rights of other Merrill Creek co-owners to support 
NJDEP permitting and DRBC docketing of a new nuclear power plant (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 
The Merrill Creek reservoir storage capacity of 46,000 ac-ft far exceeds that needed to meet the 
additional 465 ac-ft allocation required for the API 000. In addition, the DRBC allows for 
temporary acquisition of releases from other owners of Merrill Creek reservoir storage 
(MCOG 2003-TN3312). For these reasons, the review team determined that additional surface- 
water use for operations of a new nuclear power plant could be met without a noticeable impact 
to the instream flow targets in the Delaware River. Because the consumptive water use would 
be a small percentage of the river flow, even under drought conditions, and it is reasonably 
foreseeable that there would be sufficient water in the Merrill Creek Reservoir to offset a new 
plant’s consumptive use, the review team has determined that the impact of consumptive use of 
surface water by a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site would be SMALL. 

5.2.2.2 Groundwater-Use Impacts 

Groundwater would be used at a new nuclear power plant for the potable and sanitary water 
system (PSWS), the fire protection system (FPS), the demineralized water distribution system 
(DWDS), and other minor uses. The average withdrawal rate for operations would be 210 gpm, 
primarily for the PSWS and DWDS, with a maximum withdrawal rate of 953 gpm, two-thirds of 
which is accounted for by the FPS (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Maximum rates would be temporary 
because they would occur only during abnormal conditions. Two additional wells would be 
installed in the PRM aquifers to supply groundwater for a new plant (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

By lowering hydraulic heads in the PRM aquifers, groundwater pumping to support operation 
of a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site could impact other groundwater users. 

The nearest public supply wells that withdraw from the PRM aquifer system are located 
approximately 3 mi across the Delaware River in Delaware and over 5 mi to the northeast in 
Salem, New Jersey. The nearest private residences are located approximately 2.8 mi east of 
the site. To evaluate the potential impact on these groundwater users, the review team 
estimated the reduction (drawdown) in groundwater head that could result from the operational 
pumping of 210 gpm from the middle PRM aquifer. 

To estimate the drawdown at offsite locations, the review team completed an independent 
evaluation using an analytical solution for radial flow to a well in a confined aquifer (the Theis 
solution, e.g., Freeze and Cherry 1979-TN3275). The review team expects the analytical 
solution to be bounding for locations offsite (e.g., the closest groundwater users) because 
leakage from the overlying/underlying aquitard units would tend to reduce the drawdown. 
Hydraulic parameters of the middle PRM aquifer were taken from a modeling study at the site 
that was conducted to evaluate potential aquifer responses to changes in groundwater 
withdrawal rates for HCGS/SGS operation (Dames and Moore 1988-TN3311). 

Dames and Moore (1988-TN3311) selected parameter values to match groundwater heads and 
chloride concentrations measured in site wells in 1987. The transmissivity value used in the 


NUREG-2168 


5-8 


November 2015 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


analytical solution represents a central value from the Dames and Moore model (1,485 ft/d, or 
11,110 gpd/ft) and is within the range of values presented in ER Table 2.3-9 (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280). The storage coefficient value used in the analytical solution matches the value used 
by the Dames and Moore model (0.00009). Use of a larger storage coefficient value, such as 
the value presented in ER Table 2.3-9 (PSEG 2015-TN4280), would decrease the estimated 
drawdown. 

The analytical solution was evaluated for use at the PSEG Site by comparing it to model results 
presented in Dames and Moore (1988-TN3311): 20 years of pumping at 1987 rates (493 gpm 
from the middle PRM aquifer). The analytical solution provided a reasonable approximation, as 
shown on the left side of Figure 5-1. The analytical solution overestimated drawdown near the 
pumping well because all pumping was concentrated at a single well instead of distributing it 
among three wells as is the actual case. The analytical solution slightly underestimated the 
drawdown at 4,500 ft. 



Distance from Pumping (ft) Distance from Pumping (mi) 

Figure 5-1. Evaluation of Groundwater Drawdown from Onsite Pumping. (Left) Theis 

analytical solution for 20 years of pumping 493 gpm from the middle Potomac- 
Raritan-Magothy (PRM) aquifer compared with model results from Figure 44 of 
Dames and Moore (1988-TN3311); (right) estimated drawdown from 40years of 
continuously pumping 210 gpm from the middle PRM aquifer. 

The analytical solution was applied to estimate drawdown after 40 years of continuous pumping 
at 210 gpm. The resulting drawdown is shown on the right side of Figure 5-1 as a function of 
the distance from the pumping well. The drawdown is 16.6 ft at a distance of 3 mi and 14.4 ft at 
a distance of 5 mi. According to U.S. Geological Survey interpretations of regional groundwater 
levels (Lacombe and Rosman 2001-TN4194; Lacombe and Rosman 1997-TN4195; Rosman et 
al. 1995-TN4196; Eckel and Walker 1986-TN4197; Walker 1983-TN4198), existing groundwater 
heads in the middle PRM aquifer are estimated to be at an elevation of about -40 ft at a 
distance of about 3 mi from the PSEG Site as a result of past and current HCGS and SGS 
groundwater use. An additional 14-17 ft of drawdown from groundwater use by the proposed 
plant would pose no risk of dewatering an offsite well screened in the middle PRM aquifer. 
Because of leakage from the overlying and underlying aquitard units, actual drawdown is 


November 2015 


5-9 


NUREG-2168 





















Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


expected to be less than predicted by the analytical solution. As a result, the review team 
concludes that the impact on nearby groundwater users from the operational use of 
groundwater by a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site would be SMALL, and no further 
mitigation would be warranted. 

5.2.3 Water-Quality Impacts 

This section discusses impacts to the quality of water resources from the operation of a new 
nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site. Surface-water impacts would include those from 
discharges of thermal, chemical, and radiological wastes as well as physical changes in the 
Delaware River resulting from effluents discharged by a new plant. Groundwater impacts would 
include those from inadvertent chemical spills that may affect shallow (brackish) groundwater 
and pumping-induced salinity increases to deep aquifers. 

5.2.3 .7 Surface- Water- Quality Impacts 

Stormwater Runoff 

During operation of a new nuclear power plant, stormwater runoff from the newly developed 
areas of the PSEG Site could increase. However, as stated in Section 5.2.1, an SWPPP would 
be in place to manage stormwater runoff and prevent erosion. The SWPPP would be required 
to meet NJPDES stormwater discharge requirements. PSEG would use BMPs as required by 
N JPDES under the SWPPP to minimize degradation of runoff water quality. Because of the 
relatively small area that could generate increased runoff compared to the drainage area of the 
Delaware River and the use of BMPs, the increased runoff and its quality are not expected to 
noticeably affect Delaware River water quality near the PSEG Site. Therefore, the review team 
concluded that the surface-water quality of the river would be minimally affected by stormwater 
runoff during operations. 

Thermal Discharge 

During operation of a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site, blowdown from the cooling 
water system cooling towers would be discharged to the Delaware River using a discharge 
pipeline. Thermal discharges are allowed and regulated as part of the NJPDES permit 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). DRBC’s Administrative Manual Part III, which sets water-quality 
requirements, applies to all public and private waste discharges to waters to the Delaware River 
Basin (18 CFR Part 410-TN3235). Water-quality standards for the Delaware River Basin are 
listed in Article 3 of the Delaware River Basin Water Code, and water-quality standards for 
interstate tidal streams are listed in Section 3.30 of Article 3 (DRBC 2011-TN2371). Zone 5 of 
the interstate tidal streams is the part of the Delaware River between Delaware 
RM 78.8 and 48.2; the discharge from a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site would occur 
in this zone. Stream water quality objectives for Zone 5 are listed in Water Code Article 3 
Section 3.30.5. The temperature-related standards for Zone 5 require that the ambient water 
temperature in the river outside the designated heat dissipation area (HDA) may not increase by 
more than 4°F (2.2°C) from September through May, and by 1,5°F (0.8°C) from June through 
August, with a year-round maximum water temperature of 86°F (30°C). The DRBC defines an 
HDA for thermal discharges; these are determined on a case-by-case basis and are an area 


NUREG-2168 


5-10 


November 2015 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


within which thermal limits set by the DRBC may be exceeded (DRBC 2011-TN2371). The 
HDA for SGS has been in effect since 1977. The HDA for SGS was modified by DRBC in 1995 
and 2001, with the 2001 requirements stated in the 2001 NJPDES permit (NRC 2011-TN3131). 

SGS has seasonal HDAs. From June through August, the SGS HDA extends 25.300 ft 
upstream and 21,100 ft downstream from the SGS discharge, with its lateral extent into the river 
reaching no closer than 1,320 ft from the eastern edge of the Delaware River shipping channel 
(NRC 2011-TN3131). From September through May, the SGS HDA extends 3,300 ft upstream 
and 6,000 ft downstream from the discharge, with its lateral extent into the river reaching no 
closer than 3,200 ft from the eastern edge of the Delaware River shipping channel (NRC 2011- 
TN3131). PSEG also has held a thermal variance for SGS under Section 316(a) since the 1994 
NJPDES permit. In 2006. PSEG applied for the NJPDES permit renewal with a request for 
renewal of the 316(a) variance. PSEG submitted a timely application for renewal of the 
NJPDES permit; therefore, the conditions of its expired permit remain in effect pursuant to New 
Jersey Administrative Code (NJAC) 7:14A2.8 (TN4297). The 30-day average SGS circulating 
water flow for its once-through cooling system is about 3,024 million gpd or 4,679 cfs. 

The HCGS HDA is a rectangle extending 2,500 ft upstream. 2,500 ft downstream, and 1,500 ft 
into the river from the HCGS blowdown discharge (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The HCGS blowdown 
discharge is located approximately 4,000 ft upstream of the SGS discharge. The blowdown 
discharge pipe for a new nuclear power plant would be located approximately 100 ft offshore in 
the river and approximately 2,500 ft north of the HCGS discharge (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The 
discharge pipe outlet for a new plant would be located approximately 3.0 ft above the river 
bottom, and the average discharge and velocity would be approximately 51,946 gpm or 116 cfs 
and 9.2 fps, respectively (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Because a new nuclear power plant at the 
PSEG Site would have an average discharge to the Delaware River about 60 percent greater 
than that of the HCGS discharge, the HDA for a new plant is expected to be larger than, and 
overlap with, the HCGS HDA. 

To determine the effects of discharge from a new nuclear power plant on the Delaware River, 
PSEG used the Cornell Mixing Zone Expert System (CORMIX) to perform a conservative 
analysis (PSEG 2015-TN4280). PSEG used the CORMIX model that was developed to support 
the recent HCGS extended power uprate application as the starting point (PSEG 2012- 
TN2244). During the thermal plume analysis to support the HCGS power uprate application, 
PSEG determined that June was the critical month for meeting regulatory criteria for 
temperature in the Delaware River. For a new nuclear power plant, PSEG evaluated five 
discharge thermal plume scenarios: (1) during ebb tide after slack water; (2) during ebb tide, 
running tide; (3) during low water, running tide; (4) during flood tide after slack water; and 
(5) during flood tide, running tide. No heat loss to the atmosphere was assumed, which 
maximizes water temperature in the plume. The discharge from a new plant was set to 116 cfs. 
The discharge excess temperature was set to 17.3°F, which is the 10 percent exceedance 
excess temperature for the HCGS discharge. PSEG assumed discharge from a new plant 
would be similar in thermal characteristics to discharge from HCGS (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 
Similarly, PSEG selected the excess salinity of the discharge from a new plant as 0.81 kg/m 3 , 
which is more than the 10 percent exceedance excess salinity (0.61 kg/m 3 ) but less than the 
5 percent exceedance excess salinity (0.88 kg/m 3 ) of the HCGS discharge. PSEG used the 
ambient discharge velocities and water levels in the Delaware River using a June 2008 Acoustic 


November 2015 


5-11 


NUREG-2168 




Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Doppler Current Profiler measurement at Reedy Point station (PSEG 2012-TN2244). The 
review team evaluated the CORMIX simulation input parameters selected by PSEG for the 
thermal effects assessment and determined the following combination would result in a thermal 
plume that would be larger and would have higher water temperature than typical average 
conditions: 

• 10 percent exceedance excess temperature of the discharge, 

• greater than 10 percent exceedance excess salinity of the discharge, and 

• no heat exchange with the atmosphere. 

Therefore, the review team concluded that the thermal effects determined by PSEG for a new 
nuclear power plant are conservative. 

In the two CORMIX scenarios run during slack tide (scenarios 1 and 4), the plume extends 
directly into the Delaware River away from the discharge point because the tidal velocities are 
small. For scenarios 1 and 4, the CORMIX results showed that the distances along the plume 
centerline where the excess temperatures would fall to 1,5°F were 492 and 656 ft from the 
discharge, respectively (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The lateral extent of the plume transverse to 
ambient flow was 427 ft for scenario 1 and 466 ft for scenario 4 (PSEG 2015-TN4280). In the 
other three CORMIX scenarios, the plume is quickly turned in the direction of the advancing 
tide. The farthest downstream extent of the plume during ebb tide before the temperature 
excess falls to 1.5°F was 443 ft for CORMIX scenario 2, and the farthest upstream extent of the 
plume during flood tide before the temperature excess falls to 1.5°F was 295 ft for CORMIX 
scenario 5. The lateral extent of the plume transverse to ambient flow was 450 from the point of 
discharge (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Based on the CORMIX simulations, the thermal plume of the discharge from a new nuclear 
power plant (defined by the 1.5°F temperature excess) would have a maximum extent of about 
700 ft into the river from the discharge location, about 300 ft upstream from the discharge, and 
about 500 ft downstream from the discharge. This plume extent is smaller than the HCGS HDA 
and would partially overlap the HCGS HDA during slack and ebb tides. Because the new plant 
discharge would be larger than the discharge from HCGS and the distance between the two 
discharge locations (about 2,500 ft) is much larger than the maximum extent of the new plant’s 
thermal plume, the review team determined that the actual overlap of the thermal plumes from 
the new plant and HCGS would be minor. 

The extent of the thermal plume from the new plant would be much smaller than the SGS HDA 
and would be completely contained within the existing SGS HDA. Because the extent of the 
thermal plume from a new plant would be small relative to the approved HDA for SGS, and 
because the extent of its largest excess temperatures would be localized near the discharge 
outlet far from the areas of large excess temperatures at SGS, the review team determined the 
impacts of thermal discharges from a new nuclear power plant would be minor. 

Figure 5-2 illustrates the relationship among the CORMIX-predicted thermal plume from the new 
plant’s discharge during flood tide (with the plume size defined by the 1.5°F temperature 
excess), the HCGS HDA, and the approximate thermal plume from the SGS discharge based 
on surface temperature measurements at the end of flood tide on May 29, 1998. PSEG 
reported that during flood tides, the excess temperature near the discharge location of a new 


NUREG-2168 


5-12 


November 2015 





Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 



Figure 5-2. Predicted PSEG Thermal Plume (defined by the 1.5°F temperature excess) in 
Relation to the Approximate Locations of the HCGS HDA and the SGS Plume 
Boundary under Flood Tide Conditions (Source: Modified from PSEG 2015- 
TN4280) 


November 2015 


5-13 


NUREG-2168 














Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


nuclear power plant from both SGS units operating at full capacity is about 3.6°F (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280). The HCGS HDA extends 2,500 ft north of the HCGS discharge point, approximately 
where a new nuclear power plant’s discharge point would be located. Therefore, it is possible 
that the water temperature in the Delaware River could rise above 86°F in a small area just 
outside the HCGS HDA. This area is just outside the location where the excess temperature 
from discharge from a new plant would reach 1,5°F when the ambient Delaware River 
temperature is at or above 79.4°F. The excess temperatures from operations of the SGS, 
HCGS, and a new plant would be 3.6°F, 1.5°F, and 1.5°F, respectively (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Based on analysis of statistics of water temperature data measured at the U.S. Geological 
Survey (USGS) station Delaware River at Reedy Island Jetty, Delaware, the review team 
determined that median water temperature exceeds 79.4°F from July 14 through August 20. 
Therefore, the review team concluded that in the area just outside the HCGS HDA and just 
outside the area where the excess temperature from the discharge for a new nuclear power 
plant would reach 1,5°F, water temperature in the Delaware River could frequently (more than 
half of the days) exceed 86°F when all units of SGS, HCGS, and a new plant are operating. 
However, as shown by the PSEG CORMIX modeling, the thermal plume quickly mixes and 
dissipates in the river such that the plume areas are small. Also, while reviewing the NJDEP 
application for a new discharge to the Delaware River, DRBC and NJDEP would have the 
opportunity to designate an HDA for a new nuclear power plant and require discharge rules that 
would protect the aquatic environment. Therefore, the review team determined that the 
combined discharges from SGS, HCGS, and a new nuclear power plant would not noticeably 
affect the Delaware River. 

Nonradioactive Liquid Effluent Discharge 

Nonradioactive liquid effluents from a new nuclear power plant would be discharged to the 
Delaware River with the cooling water system blowdown. However, releases to the tidal marsh 
areas north of the PSEG Site are not anticipated. The effluents to be released include 
stormwater drainage and treated power block discharges such as oily wastes, acid/caustic 
wastes, operational wastes, blowdown, and sanitary wastes (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Potable 
and sanitary discharges are regulated under the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1251 et seq. - 
TN662) through the NJPDES permit and the requirements of DRBC. Chemical treatment in the 
cooling water system would include biocides and other chemicals (corrosion inhibitors) to 
maintain water quality. All effluents would be controlled in accordance with appropriate permits 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). The concentrations of pollutants in the liquid discharge would be set by 
NJDEP in the NJPDES permit for a new plant. Once discharged to the Delaware River, liquid 
wastes would quickly mix in the ambient flow and become diluted. The review team determined 
that discharge of nonradioactive liquid effluents to the Delaware River would not cause a 
noticeable impact on the water quality of the river. Therefore, water-quality impacts from 
nonradioactive waste discharge from a new nuclear power plant would be minor, and no 
additional mitigation is needed beyond that specified in appropriate permits. 

Physical Effects of Discharge 

Discharge from a new nuclear power plant would have a relatively high velocity of 9.2 fps 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). To minimize potential scour, the river bottom near the outlet of the 


NUREG-2168 


5-14 


November 2015 




Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


discharge pipe would be armored with riprap or other engineered features. Therefore, the 
review team concluded that physical effects of wastewater discharge during operation of a new 
plant would be minimal. 

Also, infrequent dredging of the intake channel and the barge canal area may be needed during 
operation of a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site. These activities would be infrequent, 
and any sediment disturbed would quickly settle upon cessation of the activities. Any effects to 
water quality during these periods would be temporary and would be managed using BMPs. 
Therefore, the review team concluded that physical effects of dredging during operation of a 
new plant would be minimal. 

Surface-Water-Quality Impacts Summary 

The review team determined that the impacts of operations activities on the quality of surface 
water in the area would be limited because (1) the volume of stormwater runoff from the site 
would be small compared to the volume of the Delaware River, and BMPs would be used; 

(2) the thermal plume for the proposed plant would be completely contained within the existing 
SGS HDA; (3) DRBC and NJDEP would designate an HDA for the proposed plant and require 
discharge rules that would protect the aquatic environment; (4) nonradioactive liquid effluent 
concentrations would meet NJDEP permit requirements; (5) the river bottom near the outlet of 
the discharge pipe would be armored with riprap or other engineered features; and (6) dredging 
of the intake would be infrequent and any disturbed sediment would quickly settle. Therefore, 
the review team determined that impacts on water quality in the Delaware River from operations 
of a new plant at the PSEG Site would be SMALL. 

5.2.3.2 Groundwater- Quality Impacts 

PSEG does not plan routine discharges to groundwater from a new nuclear power plant at the 
PSEG Site (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Potential impacts to groundwater could come from 
nonroutine chemical spills that may migrate to shallow water (brackish) zones. BMPs would be 
used during operations to minimize potential impacts of chemical spills on groundwater quality. 

If a spill occurs, NJDEP requires reporting and remediation to minimize or prevent groundwater 
impacts. The site grade would contain engineered fill with a low permeability to further limit the 
risk of groundwater contamination from accidental releases to the land surface (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280). An additional factor limiting the impact of any spills to shallow groundwater is the lack 
of use of these aquifers because of their brackish water. 

By reducing groundwater head in the region surrounding the PSEG Site, operational use of 
water from the PRM aquifers has the potential to induce saltwater intrusion. Regional estimates 
of aquifer salinity are based on limited data (Schaefer 1983-TN3007) and modeling (Pope and 
Gordon 1999-TN3006). Recent estimates place the 250-mg/L line of equal chloride 
concentration close to Artificial Island in the middle PRM aquifer (dePaul et al. 2009-TN2948). 
Chloride data from the HCGS and SGS production wells presented in Section 2.3.3.2 indicate 
that the concentration has been fairly stable for the past 10 years. Data presented in Dames 
and Moore (Dames and Moore 1988-TN3311) show that chloride concentration in 1987 was 
15 mg/L in wells HC-1 and HC-2 and 45 mg/L in PW-5. These concentrations are slightly higher 
than the median values between March 2003 and September 2013: 8 mg/L in HC-1, 5 mg/L in 


November 2015 


5-15 


NUREG-2168 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


HC-2, and 22 mg/L in PW-5. The higher concentrations in 1987 may have resulted from higher 
pumping rates; combined pumping from the middle PRM aquifer was 493 gpm in 1987 and 
averaged 369 gpm between 2002 and 2009. However, regional pumping was also greater in 
the early 1980s, as this was before the establishment of Water Supply Critical Area 2 and may 
have influenced chloride concentrations in the HCGS/SGS production wells. Combined 
pumping for HCGS/SGS and a new nuclear power plant is expected to average 579 gpm from 
the middle PRM aquifer (369 gpm plus 210 gpm), less than 100 gpm (17 percent) more than the 
1987 withdrawals. 

Dames and Moore (1988-TN3311) used modeling to evaluate the potential for saltwater 
intrusion from expansion of HCGS/SGS groundwater pumping from the middle PRM aquifer. 
They considered scenarios with 598 gpm and 736 gpm of pumping from the middle PRM 
aquifer. The higher pumping rates produced increases in chloride concentrations of 
17 and 24 mg/L, respectively, in well PW-5 and an increase of 2-5 mg/L in wells HC-1 and 
HC-2. The magnitude of these increases is similar to the differences between chloride 
concentration in 1987 and median chloride concentrations during 2003-2013. 

The available data and the modeling results suggest that operational pumping for a new nuclear 
power plant would increase chloride concentrations in the middle PRM aquifer, but these 
increases would be manageable. Additional factors that would limit the impacts are the lack of 
significant nearby groundwater use and the availability of the upper PRM aquifer as an 
alternative water source. The presence of aquitards (Marshalltown, Woodbury, and 
Merchantville Formations) between the PRM aquifers and the overlying saltwater-impacted 
aquifers also limits the potential for saline intrusion from the Vincentown and Wenonah-Mount 
Laurel aquifers. In addition, results from Pope and Gordon (Pope and Gordon 1999-TN3006) 
showed that changes in aquifer salinity have been more responsive to historic sea levels than to 
the regional groundwater withdrawals in the 20th century. Therefore, the review team 
concludes that the groundwater quality impacts from the operational use of groundwater by a 
new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site would be SMALL, and no further mitigation would be 
warranted. 

5.2.4 Water Monitoring 

Discharge monitoring of all waste streams is required to demonstrate compliance with NJPDES 
limits. PSEG anticipates that surface-water monitoring requirements for a new nuclear power 
plant’s NJPDES permit would be similar to those for the HCGS and SGS. These monitoring 
requirements would include continuous temperature monitoring at cooling water intake 
structures and at the discharge point. Because a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site 
would be a new facility under Phase I requirements of 40 CFR 125.84, monitoring to 
demonstrate compliance with 40 CFR 125.87 would be required under the NJPDES permit and 
would include monitoring of intake velocity (40 CFR Part 125-TN254). 

Section 6.3 of PSEG’s ER (PSEG 2015-TN4280) describes the hydrological monitoring program 
that would be used to control potential adverse impacts of new plant operations on surface 
water and groundwater and identifies alternatives or engineering measures that could be 
implemented to reduce these impacts. Section 6.6 of the ER describes the chemical monitoring 


NUREG-2168 


5-16 


November 2015 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


program for surface-water and groundwater quality. The objective of chemical monitoring is to 
identify changes in water quality that may result from new plant operations. 

PSEG maintains a Radiological Groundwater Protection Program (RGPP) and tritium 
remediation monitoring wells. The wells installed for the RGPP at HCGS and SGS and for 
tritium remediation monitoring at SGS are generally located in the shallow water-bearing strata 
or the Vincentown aquifer, consistent with the wells installed in conjunction with the ESP 
application. A monitoring plan would be developed for the final selected plant design to monitor 
potential impacts of plant operations on the groundwater. 

5.3 Ecological Impacts 

This section describes the potential impacts to ecological resources from operating a new 
nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site. The impacts are discussed separately for terrestrial 
ecosystems (see Section 5.3.1) and aquatic ecosystems (see Section 5.3.2). 

5.3.1 Terrestrial and Wetland Impacts Related to Operations 

The main concerns regarding potential impacts on terrestrial ecological resources from the 
operation of a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site are associated with cooling system 
operations. Cooling system operations can result in the deposition of dissolved solids: 
increased local fogging, precipitation, or icing; a greater risk of bird and bat collision mortality: 
shoreline alteration of the source water body; and noise. The addition of a new nuclear power 
plant at the PSEG Site would also result in increased traffic along the proposed causeway from 
additional employees at the site (NRC 2013-TN2654; NRC 1999-TN289). 

5.3. 7.7 Terrestrial and Wetland Resources - Site and Vicinity 

Cooling System Impacts on Vegetation 

Cooling system operations for a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site pose the most 
significant risks to vegetation. The proposed cooling systems, as described in Chapter 3. would 
use a recirculating (closed-cycle) cooling water system that includes natural draft cooling towers 
(NDCTs), mechanical draft cooling towers (MDCTs), or fan-assisted cooling towers during 
normal operations. The circulating water system (CWS) cooling towers would be the tallest 
structures onsite at a potential height of 590 ft and would dissipate heat at a rate of 1.508 * 10'- 
Btu/hr with evaporation losses as high as 25,264 gpm and a drift loss as high as 12 gpm. The 
service water system (SWS) would provide cooling functions for systems not serviced by the 
CWS during operation and during cool down, refueling, and plant start-up modes. The shorter 
SWS cooling towers would dissipate heat at a maximum rate of 2,284 gpm and a maximum drift 
loss of 4 gpm. Because the impacts from the SWS cooling towers would be less than the CWS 
cooling towers, discussion of potential impacts as a result of cooling system operations will be 
limited to the CWS cooling towers (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Heat from operating a new nuclear power plant would be transferred to the atmosphere in the 
form of water vapor and drift from cooling towers. Vapor plumes and drift can affect crops, 
ornamental vegetation, and native plants, and water losses can affect shoreline habitat. Total 
dissolved solids (TDS) found in the vapor and drift have the potential to be deposited onto 
foliage or soil and cause visible damage (e.g., necrotic tissue and other deformities) and/or 


November 2015 


5-17 


NUREG-2168 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


chronic effects (e.g., reduced growth and increased susceptibility to disease). NUREG-1555, 
Section 5.3.3.2 (NRC 2000-TN614) indicates that plants are generally not damaged by salt 
deposition rates of 1 to 2 kg/ha/mo. Salt deposition rates greater than 10 kg/ha/mo during the 
growing season have the potential to cause leaf damage in some vegetation species. 

The linear mechanical draft cooling tower (LMDCT) has greater potential for salt drift than other 
proposed cooling tower structures. Therefore, discussion of salt deposition as a result of 
cooling tower drift will be limited to the deposition rate of the LMDCT. The results of Seasonal 
and Annual Cooling Tower Impact (SACTI) Prediction Code modeling conducted by PSEG and 
confirmed by the staffs independent analysis for the proposed site shows that the maximum salt 
deposition rate during any season is 1.31 kg/ha/mo (1.17 Ib/ac/mo) during the winter. The 
maximum expected salt deposition rate in any direction is 0.89 kg/ha/mo (0.80 Ib/ac/mo) 

(Table 5-1) (PSEG 2015-TN4280). These salt deposition rates fall within the rate described by 
NUREG-1555 as generally not damaging to plants (NRC 1996-TN288; NRC 1999-TN289). 

Analyses performed by PSEG have shown that cooling tower drift over terrestrial habitats is 
primarily to the east (within coastal wetlands) (Figure 5-3) and southeast on the PSEG Site. 

Most of the plant communities within the salt drift zone that would be exposed to drift from the 
PSEG cooling towers are salt marsh or brackish marsh ecosystems dominated by species 
(Phragmites australis and Spartina alterniflora) with medium to high salinity tolerance. Surveys 
conducted previously at the PSEG Site did not record any impacts from salt deposition due to 
drift from the existing HCGS NDCT for any specific plant species. Damage to native vegetation 
has not occurred at HCGS, which uses brackish water for cooling and represents a 
comparatively high probability of impact from operation of NDCTs (NRC 1996-TN288; 

NRC 1999-TN289; PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Previous evaluations of increased fogging, icing, humidity, and/or precipitation caused by 
cooling tower plumes have been conducted for nuclear power plants with cooling towers 
(natural draft and mechanical draft). No significant impacts were reported as a result of these 
evaluations (NRC 1996-TN288; NRC 1999-TN289). In addition, based on an analysis 
conducted for the PSEG Site, the duration of any fogging and other cooling tower-induced 
precipitation events would be expected to be short (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Based on these results, combined with the nature of the local plant communities, the potential 
effects of cooling tower operations on surrounding plant communities on the PSEG Site and in 
the vicinity would be expected to be minimal. 


Table 5-1. Maximum Predicted Salt Deposition Rate 


Parameter 

Linear Mechanical Draft 
Cooling Tower (LMDCT) 

Natural Draft Cooling 
Tower (NDCT) 

Maximum predicted deposition rate 

0.89 kg/ha/mo 
(0.80 Ib/ac/mo) 

0.023 kg/ha/mo 
(0.021 Ib/ac/mo) 

Distance to maximum deposition 

700 m (2,297 ft) 

1,300 m (4,265 ft) 

Direction to maximum deposition 

East 

North 

Source: PSEG 2015-TN4280. 




NUREG-2168 


5-18 


November 2015 







(Meters) 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 



i kg 'ha.'mo 

lb.ac.TTB) 


0.70 (0.62 Ib acTno) 


0.55 (149 Ib acino) 


0.40 (0.36 Ib’Mim) 


0.10 (0.09 Ibiacjhm) 


0.Q2 (0.0? th acino) 


-5000 4000 


3000 2000 


-1000 0 

_ (MetersL 


1000 2000 3000 4OCR) 5000 


LEGEND 

• Site Location 
□ Site Boundary 




O I I 4 ’ll A H' ! 
\ 


G 


N 

S 



Miles 


Figure 5-3. LMDCT Salt Deposition Rates (Source: Modified from PSEG 2015-TN4280) 


November 2015 


5-19 


NUREG-2168 

























































Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Noise Impacts 

Noise from nuclear power plants has the potential to disrupt behavior patterns of wildlife species 
in the vicinity (NRC 2013-TN2654). Principal noise sources at a nuclear power plant include 
natural draft and mechanical draft cooling towers, transformers, and loudspeakers. The 
bounding level for noise emissions from operation of a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG 
Site is associated with fan-assisted NDCTs, as presented in the Site Safety Analysis Report 
(PSEG 2015-TN4283). The estimated “A” weighted noise emission for this type of cooling tower 
is 60 decibels (dBA) at 1,000 ft. Noise measurements recorded on the site demonstrate that 
existing noise levels attenuate to a maximum of 51.6 dBA (a value typical of ambient low noise 
environments) near the site boundary (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Noise from onsite sources associated with the PSEG Site attenuates with distance. For 
example, a source with a noise level of 50 dBA at 1,000 ft has a noise level of 44 dBA at 
2,000 ft from the source, and a source with a noise level of 60 dBA at 1,000 ft has a dBA of 54 
at 2,000 ft. A 2009 baseline ambient noise survey indicates noise from sources at the existing 
HCGS and SGS facilities attenuates to levels that generally represent background noise values 
in natural environments (see Table 5-2). This noise level is similar to that measured near the 
PSEG Site boundary. Noise sources within the adjacent marsh environment include wind, 
rustling of reeds and grasses ( Phragmites ), and animal noises (frog calls, bird songs, etc.). 

There are no known Federally listed threatened or endangered terrestrial species within the 
vicinity of the PSEG Site that potentially could be impacted by the noise of plant operations (see 
Section 2.4.1). In addition, the expected noise level is well below threshold levels that would 
generally exhibit a response in wildlife populations, as further discussed in Section 4.3.1.1. 

Thus, impacts of noise from operation of a new nuclear power plant are expected to be minimal. 


Table 5-2. Ambient Noise Levels at HCGS and SGS in February 2009 


Monitoring 

Location 


Noise Levels (dBA) 

Location Specific Attributes 

Day Leq (a) 

Night Leq (a) 

1 

Open area 500 ft south of SGS switchyard near Delaware 
River shoreline 

58.9 

57.4 

2 

Open area near meteorological tower 

51.6 

51.6 

3 

Open area adjacent to high-use onsite road 

54.3 

65.6 

4 

Open area under 500 kV transmission Line 

53.2 

53.6 

5 

Open area near HCGS cooling tower, small arms firing 
range, and low-use onsite road 

60.9 

61.5 

6 

Open area near Delaware River shoreline 

43.4 

51.6 

7 

Open area near material services building, HCGS intake 
pump house and Delaware River shoreline 

52.0 

51.6 

(a) Leq is the equivalent continuous sound level measured over the run time. 

Source: PSEG 2015-TN4280. 


NUREG-2168 


5-20 


November 2015 









Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Impacts of Avian and Bat Collisions with Power Plant Structures 

Avian mortality resulting from bird collisions with NDCTs at nuclear plants is a potential concern. 
Existing literature suggests that structures at a height approximately 300 ft or taller tend to 
exhibit higher tendencies for bird collisions and mortality rates (Kerlinger 2000-TN3188). 
Because an NDCT could potentially be 600 ft tall, it has the potential to cause increased bird 
mortality rates. The NRC concluded that relatively shorter mechanical draft towers tend to 
cause negligible mortality rates (NRC 2013-TN2654). 

As described in Section 2.4.1.1, the PSEG Site is within the Atlantic Flyway and has the 
potential for a higher number of avian collisions. PSEG completed a report on avian collisions 
at HCGS to NJDEP in 1987. The report was based on studies of bird collisions because of the 
512 ft NDCT at the site. There were 30 mortalities at the HCGS site during the year-long study 
lasting from February 1985 to January 1986, and no Federally or State-listed endangered or 
threatened species were among the mortalities documented. At the end of the study period, 
PSEG concluded that the HCGS cooling towers appeared to be an insignificant source of bird 
collisions and mortality (PSEG 1987-TN2893). 

NRC studies found that bird mortalities do occur at nuclear power plants, but such mortalities 
decreased when proper illumination was installed on the towers. Additionally, the NRC 
concluded that avian collisions with nuclear power plant structures occur at rates that are 
unlikely to pose a significant source of mortality to migratory bird populations (NRC 2013- 
TN2654). As a result, bird collisions with additional structures at the PSEG Site are expected to 
have a negligible effect on resident and migratory bird populations. 

Literature regarding bat collisions with cooling tower structures is limited. However, several 
studies have been completed regarding bat collisions with other human-made structures. 
Mortalities because of collisions with television and communication towers were recorded 
involving eastern red ( Lasiurus borealis ), hoary ( Lasiurus cinereus), and silver-haired bats 
(Lasionycteris noctivagans). These incidents have been recorded in Kansas, Florida, Missouri, 
North Dakota, and Tennessee. Similarly, bats have been known to collide with tall buildings in 
New York City and Chicago (Erickson et al. 2002-TN771). 

Bat mortalities because of collisions with wind turbines are well documented. Over 360 bats 
were collected from wind turbines in Minnesota, and the highest mortality rate of 32 bat 
mortalities per three wind turbines was recorded at a wind generating facility in Tennessee. 

Only 6 of the 39 species of bats that are known to occur in the United States were affected. 

Most of the mortalities occurred in late summer to early fall and involved mostly migratory tree 
bat species. These migratory species included mostly hoary bats, eastern red bats, and silver- 
hair bats. Other species found in smaller numbers included big brown bats ( Eptesicus fuscus), 
little brown bats ( Myotis lucifugus), and tri-colored bats ( Perimyotis subflavus). The study 
suggests that bat species do not use echolocation during migration, which can result in higher 
rates of collision with human-made structures. Fewer collisions occurred with resident bat 
populations that forage near these structures. Additionally, evidence suggests that bat 
collisions with human-made structures are not a significant source of population declines 
(Erickson et al. 2002-TN771). 


November 2015 


5-21 


NUREG-2168 





Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Impacts of Artificial Light 

Artificial light can impact wildlife by both disorientation and attraction. Nighttime migrating bird 
species can be impacted when meteorological conditions, such as inclement weather, bring 
them into close proximity with artificial lighting. Birds may become disoriented and collide with 
each other or structures, become exhausted, or be taken by predators (Longcore 2004- 
TN3189). Artificial lighting may impact terrestrial mammal nocturnal predator-prey relationships 
(Beier 2006-TN2380). Light pollution also may have significant negative impacts on the 
selection of flight routes by bats (Stone et al. 2009-TN3190). When exposed to artificial light, 
green frogs were found to exhibit fewer advertisement calls and moved more frequently than 
they did under ambient light conditions; this could result in potential impacts on recruitment 
rates, leading to effects on population dynamics (Baker and Richardson 2006-TN2379). 

Down shielding of lights to prevent light from being directed into the night sky can help reduce 
their effects on migratory birds. This means lights can be shielded so that the pattern of 
illumination is below the horizontal plane of the light fixture. However, this will not prevent 
potential impacts to other species, such as frogs (Longcore 2004-TN3189). 

The impacts of additional lighting could be lessened by using low sodium lighting. Down 
shielding, as described above, could be employed to further mitigate certain impacts. Operating 
experience at the HCGS has not shown that bird collisions with units have been a noticeable 
issue (PSEG 1987-TN2893). It is not expected that the incremental effect of lighting added for a 
new nuclear power plant would increase impacts to noticeable levels, particularly if down 
shielding and other best management practices (BMPs) were employed. With the use of 
appropriate BMPs, impacts to terrestrial wildlife from the additional lighting at the PSEG Site are 
expected to be minimal. Further discussion of potential impacts of artificial lighting on terrestrial 
resources can be found in Section 4.3.1.1. 

Impacts of increased Vehicle Traffic 

Increased vehicle traffic as a result of operating a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site 
has the potential to increase wildlife mortality caused by vehicle collisions. PSEG estimates that 
the onsite workforce could increase by 600 employees during normal operations and by 
1,000 employees during refueling operations (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The increase in workforce 
population would increase the amount of vehicle traffic on the site and in the vicinity. Local 
wildlife populations could decline if road-kill rates exceed the rates of reproduction and 
immigration. However, road-kills occur frequently and wildlife populations are not significantly 
affected (Forman and Alexander 1998-TN2250). No individual Federally or State-listed 
threatened or endangered species were identified that would be adversely affected by vehicle 
traffic. Therefore, the effect of increased traffic on terrestrial wildlife populations on the site and 
in the vicinity would be minimal. 

The proposed causeway would be constructed on piers, preserving wildlife travel corridors 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). By allowing wildlife travel below the causeway, this elevated design 
would also help minimize the possibility for wildlife-vehicle collisions and wildlife mortality on 
conventional roadways built on embankments. The elevated design would also minimize 
potential impacts to plant communities (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Permanent impacts to wetland 


NUREG-2168 


5-22 


November 2015 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


plant communities along the causeway would be limited to placement of piers and direct 
shading. Shading could potentially result in some alteration of plant community makeup under 
the causeway and a reduction in primary productivity. However, because the effect will be to a 
small area relative to the overall plant community, impacts are expected to be minimal. 

Impacts to Shoreline Habitat 

Based on the PSEG Site Utilization Plan (Figure 2-2), the western shoreline of the PSEG Site 
would be modified with the development of shoreline plant features that include the water intake 
structure, heavy haul road, and barge facility. In total, 9.5 ac of nearshore water and riparian 
shoreline would be impacted below the coastal wetland boundary, also known as the New 
Jersey upper wetland boundary. Based on the PSEG Site Utilization Plan, the shoreline would 
be constructed as a stabilized shoreline (using riprap or other appropriate treatment) 

(PSEG 2015-TN4280). This would be the condition of the shoreline during the operational 
phase of a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site. 

The existing disturbed nature of the shoreline likely provides marginal habitat for most terrestrial 
species. The main use of these areas is likely by some riparian zone/edge birds, as well as 
waterfowl and other birds on the open water. Open water habitat would remain during the 
operational phase, but the riparian zone would provide little habitat after the installation of the 
riprap bank. However, there are large areas of similar shoreline habitat of higher quality in the 
vicinity of the site. Therefore, it is expected that the shoreline modifications in place during the 
operational stage would have a negligible impact on terrestrial wildlife populations. 

5.3.1.2 Important Terrestrial and Wetland Species and Habitats - Operational Impacts 

This section discusses the potential impacts of operating a new nuclear power plant at the 
PSEG Site on recreationally valuable species and Federally and State-listed species, as well as 
important habitats (including wetlands) as defined by the NRC (NRC 2000-TN614). To meet 
responsibilities under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 USC 
1531 et seq. -TNI010), the review team is preparing a biological assessment (BA) that 
evaluates potential impacts of preconstruction, construction, and operations on Federally listed 
or proposed threatened or endangered aquatic and terrestrial and wetland species (see 
Appendix F). There are no areas designated as critical habitat on the PSEG Site, in the 6-mi 
vicinity, or along the proposed causeway. 

Recreationally and commercially valuable species include those that are routinely hunted, such 
as white-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus) and a number of avian species. There are also 
two valuable furbearer species in the area (i.e., river otter and muskrat). 

Most of the species identified on the site and in the vicinity are common to the region (see 
Section 2.4.1). Those rare or listed species that could potentially occur on the site more likely 
frequent higher quality habitat in the region. 


November 2015 


5-23 


NUREG-2168 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


PSEG Site and Vicinity 

Terrestrial and Wetland Species of Recreational or Commercial Value 

Recreationally valuable species that would be affected by the operation of a new nuclear power 
plant on the PSEG Site include numerous avian species and mammal species. As discussed in 
Section 4.3.1.2, most habitats available for recreationally valuable species on the PSEG Site 
and in the vicinity are common to the region. As described in Section 5.3.1.1, avian species 
have the potential to be affected by plant structures. There is no evidence linking any species 
present on the site to critical structure or function at the ecosystem level or that any species 
would serve as a biological indicator. 

Federally or State-Listed Threatened or Endangered Species 

The Federally and State-listed species that have the potential to occur on the PSEG Site and in 
the vicinity are described in Section 2.4.1.3 (Table 2-8). The only Federally listed species with a 
recent record of occurrence in the vicinity are the bog turtle ( Gyptemys muhlenbergii), northern 
long-eared bat, and swamp pink ( Helonias bullata). All of these species are discussed below. 

Reptiles and Amphibians . The bog turtle is Federally listed as threatened and is listed by both 
New Jersey and Delaware as endangered. This species was recorded historically on Artificial 
Island and in the vicinity during a study conducted between 1972 and 1978. However, there 
were no records for this species in the latest surveys conducted by PSEG in 2009 and 2010 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). Although the most recent distribution for bog turtles includes Salem 
County, the PSEG Site does not currently contain suitable habitat for this species. In addition, 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) previously indicated that this species is not known to 
occur on or in the vicinity of the HCGS and SGS sites (NRC 2011-TN3131). Bog turtles require 
large contiguous areas of land for dispersal, and intense land uses such as those found on the 
PSEG Site are not favorable to this species. Furthermore, monocultures of invasive species, 
such as Phragmites, are not conducive to bog turtle presence. In a worst-case scenario, salt 
drift could affect potential bog turtle habitat in the vicinity. However, the chances of this 
happening are thought to be minimal because no damage to native vegetation has been 
recorded for HCGS (NRC 1996-TN288; NRC 1999-TN289). Therefore, it is not expected that 
the operation of a new nuclear power plant on the PSEG Site would impact this species. 

The eastern tiger salamander ( Ambystoma tigrinum tigrinum ) is listed as endangered by both 
New Jersey and Delaware. This species was recorded historically during the Artificial Island 
study (1972 to 1978). There were no records for this species in the latest surveys conducted by 
PSEG in 2009 and 2010 (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The altered habitat present on the PSEG Site 
would not appear to be conducive to supporting tiger salamander populations. In addition, 
surveys of this species conducted in 1995 revealed that the tiger salamander occurred at only a 
limited number of sites in Atlantic and Cumberland Counties. Therefore, the operations phase 
of the PSEG project would not be expected to impact this species. 

Birds . The nearest known occurrence of the rufa red knot ( Calidris canutus rufa) is in adjacent 
Cumberland County, New Jersey, and Kent County, Delaware. This species has the potential 
to be impacted by operations of a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site (79 FR 73705- 


NUREG-2168 


5-24 


November 2015 








Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


TN4267), but there are no known populations of the rufa red knot on the PSEG Site and the bird 
was not recorded during previous bird surveys (PSEG 1987-TN2893; PSEG 2015-TN4280; 
Audubon 2013-TN2414). The primary risk to the rufa red knot at the PSEG Site is from 
potential collisions with power plant structures during migration. The PSEG Site does not 
contain suitable habitat or forage to support this species. 

Eight birds of prey were identified as important species. These include the Cooper’s hawk 
(•Accipiter cooperii ), northern goshawk, red-shouldered hawk ( Buteo lineatus), northern harrier 
(Circus cyaneus ), bald eagle ( Haliaeetus leucocephalus), osprey ( Pandion haliaetus), American 
kestrel ( Falco sparverius), and peregrine falcon ( Falco peregrinus). 

The Cooper's hawk is listed as a species of special concern in New Jersey (Table 2-8). 

Cooper's hawks prefer large tracts of forested land where they nest in large, mature trees. One 
was observed in a small tree on the site in the fall of 2009. Preferred habitat for this species is 
not present on the site, and Cooper’s hawks are more likely residents of forested habitat in the 
vicinity of the PSEG Site. Use of habitat at the PSEG Site by this species is most likely of a 
transient nature. Therefore, operations-related impacts to Cooper’s hawks are expected to be 
minimal. 

Northern goshawks, listed as endangered for the breeding population and of special concern for 
the nonbreeding population in New Jersey (Table 2-8), have been reported in the project vicinity 
during recent (2008 to 2009) Audubon Society Annual Christmas Bird Counts for Salem County 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280; Audubon 2013-TN2414). The PSEG Site contains no potential breeding 
habitat for goshawks and probably would provide only marginal nonbreeding season habitat for 
this species during the operations stage of the project. Given the abundance of nonbreeding 
season habitat in the site vicinity and the actual rarity of this species in the area, any impacts to 
the northern goshawk would be expected to be minimal. 

The red-shouldered hawk, a New Jersey-listed endangered species (Table 2-8), has been 
identified in recent years near the PSEG Site during the Audubon Society Annual Christmas 
Bird Counts for Salem County as discussed in Section 2.4.1. However, no red-shouldered 
hawks were observed on the site during the 2009 to 2010 PSEG field survey. There is no 
breeding habitat for this species on the PSEG Site, and this species probably only uses the site 
transiently. Preferred habitat for this species is available in the site vicinity. Therefore, 
operations-related impacts to red-shouldered hawks are expected to be minimal. 

The northern harrier, listed as endangered in New Jersey and Delaware (Table 2-8), was 
commonly observed foraging in the coastal wetlands on the site and in proximity to the site. 
Nests were not observed on the site during the 2009 to 2010 field surveys; however, nesting 
habitat in the coastal marsh is present on the site and in the vicinity. Onsite habitat would have 
already been reduced by the time of operations, with abundant higher quality habitat remaining 
in the vicinity. The northern harrier has remained a common species in the area with ongoing 
operations at the nearby HCGS and SGS facilities. Therefore, it would not be expected that this 
species would be impacted significantly with the addition of a new nuclear power plant on the 
PSEG Site. Therefore, impacts to the northern harrier during the operations stage are expected 
to be minimal. 


November 2015 


5-25 


NUREG-2168 



Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Owing to its successful recovery, the bald eagle is no longer a Federally listed species by the 
FWS. The bald eagle was identified as important because of its status as a Federally protected 
species (16 USC 703 et seq. -TN3331; 16 USC 668 et seq. -TN1447) and as a State-listed 
endangered species for both New Jersey and Delaware (Table 2-8). Although bald eagles were 
occasionally observed during the 2009 to 2010 onsite field survey, there are no known bald 
eagle nests or suitable roosting habitat at the PSEG Site. This is primarily due to the absence 
of large trees or suitable structures that could support nesting activities. Therefore, operations- 
related impacts to the bald eagle are expected to be minimal (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Ospreys, a threatened species in New Jersey and a species of special concern in Delaware 
(Table 2-8), were occasionally observed both on the site and in the vicinity of the PSEG Site 
during the 2009 to 2010 field survey. Active osprey nests were observed on transmission 
towers along the current access road, on the transmission towers that run from the proposed 
site north towards Money Island Road, and on human-made nesting platforms constructed by 
PSEG along Alloway Creek. Potential nesting habitat in the form of additional transmission 
towers may be more plentiful after the construction phase of a new nuclear power plant. The 
osprey has remained a common species in the area with ongoing operations at the nearby 
HCGS and SGS facilities. Therefore, it would not be expected that this species would be 
significantly impacted by the addition of a new nuclear power plant. Consequently, impacts to 
the osprey during the operations stage are expected to be minimal. 

American kestrels, listed as threatened in New Jersey (Table 2-8), have been reported in the 
PSEG Site vicinity by the USGS North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) and during recent 
(2005-2010) Audubon Society Annual Christmas Bird Counts for Salem County (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280; Audubon 2013-TN2414). This species was also recorded during past work conducted 
in the Alloway Creek Watershed (PSEG 2004-TN2897). The species was not recorded on the 
site during the 2009 to 2010 PSEG survey. This species prefers open country. A relatively 
small amount of potential American kestrel habitat would be permanently disturbed by building 
activities on the PSEG Site and causeway, and mitigation of those areas temporarily disturbed 
may actually improve habitat for this species during the operations phase. Large areas of 
higher quality and more suitable habitat are also present in the site vicinity. Consequently, 
impacts on kestrels during the operations phase are expected to be minimal. 

Peregrine falcons, listed as endangered for the breeding population and of special concern for 
the nonbreeding population in New Jersey (Table 2-8), have been reported in the PSEG Site 
vicinity during recent (2005 to 2006) Audubon Society Annual Christmas Bird Counts for Salem 
County (PSEG 2015-TN4280; Audubon 2013-TN2414). There are no records for nesting 
peregrine falcons in Salem County. Any expected use of the PSEG Site by peregrines would be 
for foraging, which would most likely occur in the winter. This species favors open areas for 
hunting, frequently hunting over marshes, beaches, and open water. There would be some loss 
of potential foraging habitat (i.e., wetlands) for this species because of onsite and causeway 
development. However, large areas of higher quality suitable habitat exist in the site vicinity, 
and it is more likely that peregrines would use this higher quality adjacent habitat. Therefore, 
impacts on peregrine falcons during the operations phase are expected to be minimal. 

A number of wading birds have been documented on and adjacent to the PSEG Site during past 
surveys. Several of these species have listed status in New Jersey and/or Delaware 


NUREG-2168 


5-26 


November 2015 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


(Table 2-8). The list includes the following State-designated species of concern: great blue 
heron ( Ardea herodias), little blue heron ( Egretta caerulea), snowy egret ( Egretta thula ), and 
glossy ibis ( Plegadis falcinellus). State-listed endangered and threatened species include 
black-crowned night-heron ( Nycticorax nycticorax) and cattle egret ( Bubulcus ibis). An 
additional State-listed species, the pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps), has been observed 
in low numbers during Audubon Society Annual Christmas Bird Counts for Salem County. 
Common terns ( Sterna hirundo), State-designated species of concern, also have been recorded 
at the site and in the vicinity. Spotted sandpipers ( Actitis macularius ), New Jersey State- 
designated species of concern, may also frequent such areas. There are no known heron/egret 
rookeries or tern colonies on the PSEG Site. The PSEG Site does contain potential foraging 
habitat that would be impacted permanently by construction. However, large areas of similar 
habitat exist in the vicinity of the site. In addition, these species have continued to frequent the 
area with ongoing operations at the nearby HCGS and SGS facilities (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 
Therefore, impacts to these species during the operations phase are expected to be minimal. 

A number of New Jersey and/or Delaware State-listed bird species that typically frequent old 
fields and other open habitats have been recorded on or in the vicinity of the PSEG Site. These 
include State-designated species of concern, including brown thrasher ( Toxostoma rufum), 
eastern meadowlark ( Sturnella magna ), and yellow-breasted chat ( Icteria virens). Additionally, 
State-listed endangered and threatened species, such as horned lark ( Eremophila alpestris), 
bobolink {Dolichonyx oryzivorus), grasshopper sparrow ( Ammodramus savannarum), and 
savannah sparrow ( Passerculus sandwichensis), are known to occur in these habitats 
(Table 2-8). The construction phase would permanently impact potential habitat for these 
species, and mitigation to restore habitat temporarily impacted could actually improve habitat for 
these species during the operations phase. In addition, these species would most likely use the 
large areas of higher quality habitat in the vicinity. Therefore, impacts to these species during 
the operations phase are expected to be minimal. 

The red-headed woodpecker ( Melanerpes erythrocephalus) breeding and nonbreeding 
populations are listed by New Jersey as threatened (Table 2-8). No red-headed woodpeckers 
were observed during the 2009 to 2010 field survey, nor have any been reported in the USGS 
BBS or the Audubon Society Annual Christmas Bird Counts for Salem County. In addition, as 
noted in Section 2.4.1, the site and vicinity lack suitable habitat for this species (i.e., open 
woods, deciduous forests, forest edges, river bottoms, orchards, grasslands with scattered trees 
and clearings, and dead or dying trees). Therefore, it is not expected that this species would be 
present during the operations phase. Consequently, it is not expected that there would be any 
operations-related impacts to red-headed woodpeckers as a result of a new nuclear power plant 
at the PSEG Site. 

The northern parula ( Parula americana) and hooded warbler ( Wilsonia citrina ), New Jersey 
State-designated species of concern, are two warbler species recorded during USGS BBS 
surveys in the vicinity of the site. These species would not be impacted by the project because 
the site contains very little viable habitat to support them. Only transient use of the site would 
be expected for these species. 

Plants . The sensitive joint vetch ( Aeschynomene virginica) is Federally listed as threatened. 

The historic range of this species includes New Jersey counties of Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, 


November 2015 


5-27 


NUREG-2168 



Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, and Salem, and 
Delaware counties of Kent, New Castle, and Sussex (FWS 2014-TN3319). Sensitive joint vetch 
is an obligate wetland species that occurs in palustrine forested wetlands with canopy closures 
of 20 to 100 percent. There were no records of occurrences during studies conducted between 
1972 and 1978 and surveys conducted from 2009 to 2010 (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Sensitive 
joint vetch is not expected to occur on the PSEG Site because of the lack of available habitat. 
Thus, operational impacts associated with a new nuclear power plant on the PSEG Site are not 
expected to affect this species. 

Swamp pink ( Helonias bullata) and whorled pogonia ( Isotria medeoloides) are Federally listed 
as threatened. Swamp pink is an obligate wetlands species that occurs in palustrine forested 
wetlands with canopy closures of 20 to 100 percent. Although it is believed to occur in the 
vicinity of the PSEG Site, suitable habitat does not exist on the site. Small whorled pogonia 
grows in upland, mid-successional, wooded habitats, usually with mixed deciduous/coniferous 
forest with canopy trees ranging from 40 to 75 years old. Like the swamp pink, suitable habitat 
is not available on the PSEG Site. Thus, operational impacts associated with a new nuclear 
power plant on the PSEG Site are not expected to affect these species. 

Mammals . The northern long-eared bat ( Myotis septentrionalis) is Federally listed as 
threatened. It is known to occur in the northern and central portions of Salem County, New 
Jersey, and has the potential to be impacted by operations of a new nuclear power plant at the 
PSEG Site. The primary risk to northern long-eared bats is from collisions with power plant 
structures. As mentioned in Section 5.3.1.1, bat collisions are known to occur with human- 
made structures. However, collisions are attributed to bat migrations near these structures. 
There are no known bat populations on the PSEG Site, and hibernacula, maternity roosts, and 
foraging habitat are not available on the site. Northern long-eared bat mortality as a result of 
collisions with plant structures would not be expected. Therefore, the review team has 
determined that operating a new nuclear power plant on the PSEG Site would not affect the 
northern long-eared bat. 

Other Important Species . Green tree frogs ( Hyla cinerea) were observed on the site in small 
isolated impounded areas within the PSEG desilt basin during the 2009 to 2010 survey 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). A survey conducted in June and July 2012 also detected this species in 
the same general onsite location as well as in numerous offsite locations in the vicinity 
(AMEC 2012-TN3187). This was a new species record for New Jersey, although its range does 
extend throughout the Delmarva Peninsula to the south and west. The range of this species 
appears to be expanding and it is not listed on the New Jersey special concern, threatened, or 
endangered species lists. As discussed in Section 4.3.1, building a new nuclear power plant on 
the PSEG Site will alter or eliminate habitat for this species. However, the green tree frog was 
recorded in numerous offsite locations during the 2012 survey, some in the vicinity of the 
existing HCGS and SGS facilities. Therefore, the impacts of operations on this species would 
be expected to be minimal. 

Summary of Operational Impacts on Important Terrestrial and Wetland Species at the PSEG 

Site and Vicinity . The impact on important terrestrial species resulting from the operation of a 
new nuclear power plant on the PSEG Site is projected to be minimal with no additional 
mitigation needed. Habitat available to important species that currently exist on the PSEG Site 


NUREG-2168 


5-28 


November 2015 








Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


where operational activities would occur is more common elsewhere in the vicinity. Avian 
collisions with the new nuclear power plant structures would be minimal and would not be a 
significant threat to overall bird populations in the area. Noise impacts would be localized and 
would attenuate with distance. Artificial lighting would not be expected to significantly disrupt 
important species behaviors beyond the PSEG Site. Therefore, the review team concludes that 
operational impacts to important terrestrial and wetland species would be negligible. 

Important Terrestrial and Wetland Habitats - PSEG Site and Vicinity 
Wetlands 


Jurisdictional wetlands (i.e., those that are regulated by the USACE under Section 404 of the 
Clean Water Act [33 USC 1251 et seq. -TN662]) are often more narrowly defined than wetlands 
identified as part of the NJDEP land use and land cover (LULC) classification system and are 
subject to USACE permitting requirements. Therefore, jurisdictional wetlands are evaluated 
separately from the LULC analysis presented in Section 5.3.1.1. 

Wetland impacts during the operation of a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site would be 
limited to the operation of cooling towers. Cooling tower impacts on vegetation are discussed in 
Section 5.3.1.1. Cooling towers are expected to have the greatest influence on wetland 
communities located to the east and southeast of the PSEG Site and include salt marsh or 
brackish marsh ecosystems dominated by species (Phragmites australis and Spartina 
alterniflora) with medium to high salinity tolerance. Previous surveys of salt drift from the 
existing HCGS cooling tower did not show any damage as the result of salt deposition, soil 
salinization, fogging, or icing. Analysis conducted for the PSEG Site did not indicate a high rate 
of fogging or other cooling tower-induced precipitation (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Therefore, the 
impacts on wetlands from the operation of a new nuclear power plant on the PSEG Site are 
expected to be minimal. 

Mad Horse Creek WMA and Abbotts Meadow WMA 


As discussed in Section 4.3.1.2, Mad Horse Creek WMA and Abbotts Meadow WMA would be 
affected by the addition of a new nuclear power plant on the PSEG Site. The operational 
impacts to these important areas are associated with the proposed causeway. The proposed 
causeway would be elevated above the surface through these areas, and the flow of water 
through wetlands and open water is not expected to be affected (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 
However, damage as a result of shading may occur. Less than 1 ac is expected to be affected, 
which is less than 1 percent of the total available WMA. Therefore, the impacts of operating a 
new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site on important terrestrial and wetland habitats on these 
WMAs are expected to be minimal. 

Summary of Impacts to Important Habitats at the PSEG Site 

Impacts to important habitats as a result of operations of a new nuclear power plant on the 
PSEG Site are expected to be minimal. The main impacts to wetlands would be from cooling 
tower operations. However, no perceptible impacts are expected based on the nature of the 
vegetation and previous studies that have been conducted on salt deposition resulting from 


November 2015 


5-29 


NUREG-2168 





Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


cooling towers in similar environments. Less than 1 percent of the WMAs would be impacted 
because of shading created by the proposed causeway. Although noticeable, the shading 
would have only a localized impact on species dependent on this resource. Therefore, the 
review team concludes that operational impacts on important habitats would be negligible. 

5.3.1.3 Terrestrial and Wetland Monitoring During Operations 

PSEG does not plan to conduct terrestrial and wetland monitoring during the operations phase 
of a new nuclear power plant (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

5.3.1.4 Potential Mitigation Measures for Terrestrial and Wetland Impacts 

PSEG does not plan any specific mitigation measures and controls for ecosystems during the 
operations phase because any such impacts are expected to be negligible (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280). 

5.3.1.5 Summary of Impacts to Terrestrial and Wetland Ecosystems 

The potential impacts on vegetation, birds, and other wildlife due to operation of a new nuclear 
power plant at the PSEG Site with natural draft, mechanical draft, or fan-assisted proposed 
cooling towers are likely to be minimal. Owing to the nature of the vegetation in the vicinity of 
the PSEG Site (salt marsh or brackish marsh ecosystems with medium to high salinity 
tolerance), impacts from salt drift during operations is expected to be minimal. In addition, 
surveys conducted previously at the PSEG Site did not record any impacts from salt deposition 
because of drift from the existing HCGS NDCT for any specific plant species. Past research 
has shown that bird collisions with cooling towers do not appear to impact bird population levels. 
In addition, several years of data collected at the existing HCGS NDCT have shown few 
instances of bird collisions. Therefore, the review team concludes that operational impacts to 
terrestrial and wetland resources would be SMALL. 

5.3.2 Aquatic Impacts Related to Operations 

This section discusses the potential impacts of operating a new nuclear power plant at the 
PSEG Site on the aquatic resources of the Delaware River Estuary and nearby streams and 
ponds. A list of permits and certifications required to operate a new plant at the PSEG Site is 
included in Section 5.2. 

5.3.2.1 Aquatic Resources-Site and Vicinity 
Delaware River Estuary 

All cooling water for the operation of a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site would be 
withdrawn from the Delaware River Estuary, and impacts associated with operation of the water 
intake system would be limited to aquatic resources within the Delaware River Estuary. For 
aquatic resources, the primary concerns are related to the amount of water withdrawn and the 
amount of water consumed through evaporation and the potential for organisms to be impinged 
on the intake screens or entrained into the cooling water system. Impingement occurs when 
aquatic organisms are drawn into the cooling water intake and are trapped against the intake 


NUREG-2168 


5-30 


November 2015 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


screens by the force of the water passing through the cooling water intake structure (66 FR 
65256-TN243). Impingement can result in starvation, exhaustion, asphyxiation, descaling of 
fish, and other physical injuries (66 FR 65256-TN243). Entrainment occurs when aquatic 
organisms drawn into the intake structure are small enough to pass through the intake screens 
and the cooling system. Entrained organisms are usually passively drifting forms (plankton) or 
small, weakly swimming early life stages offish and shellfish (66 FR 65256-TN243). As 
entrained organisms pass through the cooling system for a new plant at the PSEG Site, they 
would be subjected to mechanical, thermal, pressure, and chemical stresses. 

A number of factors, such as the type of cooling system, the design and location of the intake 
structure, and the amount of water withdrawn from the source water body greatly influence the 
degree to which impingement and entrainment affect aquatic biota. Impingement and 
entrainment impacts are regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or its 
designees (in this case, the NJDEP) under Section 316(b) of the CWA (33 USC 1251 et seq. - 
TN662). Section 316(b) “requires that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling 
water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse 
environmental impact.” A new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site would employ closed-cycle 
cooling (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Depending on the quality of the makeup water, closed-cycle, 
recirculating cooling water systems can reduce water use by 96 to 98 percent of the amount that 
the facility would use if it employed a once-through cooling system (66 FR 65256-TN243). This 
significant reduction in the water withdrawal rate results in a corresponding reduction in 
impingement and entrainment losses. 

The intake design through-screen velocity is another factor that greatly influences the rate of 
impingement of fish and shellfish at a facility. In general, the higher the through-screen velocity, 
the greater the number of fish impinged. The EPA has established a national standard for the 
maximum design through-screen velocity of no more than 0.5 fps (66 FR 65256-TN243). The 
EPA determined that species and life stages evaluated in various studies could endure a 
velocity of 1.0 fps; they then applied a safety factor of two to drive the threshold of 0.5 fps. 

PSEG has stated that the proposed intake structure would be located flush with the east 
shoreline of the Delaware River Estuary and would be designed to have a through-screen 
velocity of less than 0.5 fps (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The resulting low through-screen velocity 
would reduce the probability of impingement because most fish can swim against such low 
flows to avoid the intake screens. The fish protection system, including the traveling screens 
and fish return, would be designed and operated to comply with the NJPDES permit that would 
be issued for the cooling system (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Another factor affecting impingement and entrainment losses is the percentage of the flow of the 
source water body past the site that is withdrawn by the station. To minimize impacts, the EPA 
determined that for estuaries or tidal rivers, intake flow must be less than or equal to 1 percent 
of the tidal excursion (one tidal cycle of flood and ebb) volume (66 FR 65256-TN243). Makeup 
water for the cooling system would be drawn from the Delaware River Estuary at an average 
rate of 78,196 gpm (174 cfs), with consumptive use at a rate of 26,420 gpm (59 cfs) 

(PSEG 2015-TN4280). Tidal flows near the PSEG Site average 400,000 to 472,000 cfs, and 
the freshwater flow from the Delaware River and its tributaries averages 20,240 cfs. Therefore, 
the makeup water use rate is less than 0.05 percent of the average flow of the Delaware River 
Estuary near the PSEG Site (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 


November 2015 


5-31 


NUREG-2168 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Impingement 

Because of its location on the Delaware River Estuary, a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG 
Site would impinge a variety of freshwater and marine fish and shellfish. 

Data from the impingement studies for SGS (once-through cooling) indicate that between 
50 and 67 finfish species are impinged each year, compared to just under 50 species of finfish 
impinged at HCGS (closed-cycle cooling) between 1986 and 1987. However, the number of 
sampling events differed dramatically between the two plants with only 46-48 sampling events 
at HCGS over the same years (1986-87) as the more than 530 sampling events per year at 
SGS (VJSA 1988-TN2564; ECS 1989-TN2572). The species composition in the screen 
samples also varied between SGS and HCGS during the 1986-87 sampling and varied at SGS 
between the sampling dates in the 1980s and sampling dates since 2003. Table 5-3 compares 
important, most abundant, and total finfish species, as well as blue crab ( Callinectes sapidus ), 
impinged at SGS and HCGS between 1986 and 1987 and at SGS between 2003 and 2010. 

Within the 1986-1987 sampling years, species composition differed between SGS and HCGS. 
Many of the abundant or important species impinged at SGS were either not as abundant at 
HCGS at similar densities or were noticeably more abundant at HCGS than at SGS. Species 
that shared similar densities included blue crab, American Eel (Anguilla rostrata), Bay Anchovy 
(.Anchoa mitchilli), and Atlantic Silverside ( Menidia menidia). Total density of impinged fish at 
both SGS and HCGS between 1986 and 1987 was comparable and was calculated using the 
number of a given species collected per million cubic meters of intake water volume sampled. 

Table 5-3. Impingement Rate for Important, Most Abundant, and Total Finfish Species 
and Blue Crab Impinged at SGS and HCGS 


Impingement Rate 
(# of individuals/10 6 m 3 ) 


Common Name 

Scientific Name 

SGS 

(1986—87) (a) 

HCGS 

(1986-87) (a > 

SGS 

(2003-10) (b > 

American Eel 

Anguilla rostrata 

7.6 

13.4 

4.1 

Blueback Herring 

Alosa aestivalis 

49.1 

5.0 (d) 

37.2 

Alewife 

Alosa pseudoharengus 

7.6 

1 1 (d) 

8.14 

Bay Anchovy 

Anchoa mitchilli 

601.9 

521.5 

115.4(d) 

Atlantic Menhaden 

Brevoortia tyrannus 

31.0 

3.7(d) 

28.9 

Atlantic Silverside 

Menidia menidia 

18.6 

15.1 

46.7 (c > 

White Perch 

Morone americana 

359.3 

27.9 (e) 

1066.4 (c) 

Striped Bass 

Morone saxatilis 

5.3 

0.7(d) 

78.8 (e) 

Weakfish 

Cynoscion regalis 

585.4 

143.0 (c) 

486.4 

Spot 

Leiostomus xa nth urns 

13.8 

2.1(d) 

16.6 

Atlantic Croaker 

Micropogonias undulatus 

109.8 

965.4(d) 

636.7(d) 

Summer Flounder 

Paralichthys dentatus 

13.0 

4.7 (c) 

4 1(0 

Oyster Toadfish 

Opsanus tau 

16.2 

38.3 (c) 

1,8 <d ) 

Northern Pipefish 

Syngnathus fuscus 

2.1 

40.6 (e) 

4.1 

Naked Goby 

Gobiosoma bosc 

2.3 

303.2 (e) 

3.3 

Hogchoker 

Trinectes maculatus 

636.4 

112.2(d) 

152.3 (c) 


NUREG-2168 


5-32 


November 2015 







Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Table 5-3. (continued) 


Impingement Rate 
(# of individuals/10 6 m 3 ) 


Common Name 

Scientific Name 

SGS 

(1986-87) (a > 

HCGS 
(1986—87) (a > 

SGS 

(2003-10) (b) 

Spotted Hake 

Urophycis regia 

58.6 

7.0 (d > 

83.5 

Gizzard Shad 

Dorosoma cepedianum 

14.3 

1,7 (d) 

63.0 (c) 

American Shad 

Alosa sapidissima 

5.5 

0.2 

12.3 (c > 

Black Drum 

Pogonias cromis 

2.8 

0.8 

3.0 

Black Sea Bass 

Centropristis striata 

3.0 

2.0 

0.4 

Butterfish 

Peprilus triacanthus 

0.7 

ND 

0.6 

Channel Catfish 

Ictalurus punctatus 

0.9 

1.0 

8.2 (d) 

Conger Eel 

Conger oceanicus 

0.1 

0.4 

0.1 

Northern Kingfish 

Menticirrhus saxatilis 

0.2 

ND 

12.2 (e) 

Northern Searobin 

Prionotus carolinus 

3.8 

1.8 

6.0 

Scup 

Stenotomus chrysops 

ND 

ND 

1.4 

Silver Hake 

Merluccius bilinearis 

0.4 

0.1 

0.1 

Windowpane Flounder 

Scophthalmus aquosus 

4.7 

2.4 

5.2 

Winter Flounder 

Pseudopleuronectes 

americanus 

0.3 

0.4 

1.1 

Total finfish density rate (f) 


2,643.6 

2,095.4 

3,152.5 

Blue crab 

Callinectes sapidus 

1,542.5 

2,450.1 

690.4 (c) 

Total finfish and blue crab 
density rate (f) 


4,186.1 

4,545.5 

3,842.9 


Note: ND = not detected. 

(a) Sources: VJSA 1988-TN2564; ECS 1989-TN2572. 

(b) Sources: PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 
2008-TN2569: PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571. 

(c) Differs from 1986-87 SGS impingement rate by more than a factor of 2. 

(d) Differs from 1986-87 SGS impingement rate by more than a factor of 5. 

(e) Differs from 1986-87 SGS impingement rate by more than a factor of 10. 

(f) Includes all finfish impinged, not just those listed in the table. 


Differences in impinged species composition between SGS and HCGS may be attributable to 
the different physical locations of the intake structures of the two existing sites (i.e., southwest 
for the SGS cooling water intake structure versus west for the HCGS service water intake 
structure) and differences in intake screening technology and screen approach velocities 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

The comparison of the SGS 1986-87 impingement data with SGS 2003-10 impingement data 
shows shifts in specific species abundance. Calculating mean density impinged per volume of 
water corrects for the difference in number of sampling events because more frequent samples 
were collected between 2003 and 2010. Interestingly, the total abundance of blue crab, Bay 
Anchovy, Summer Flounder ( Paralichthys dentatus), Oyster Toadfish ( Opsanus tau), and 
Hogchoker ( Trinectes maculatus) diminished by a factor of 2 or more since the 1986-87 
sampling events. However, increases in Atlantic Silverside, White Perch ( Morone americana), 
Striped Bass ( Morone saxatilis), Atlantic Croaker ( Micropogonias undulatus), American Shad 
(.Alosa sapidissima), Channel Catfish {Ictalurus punctatus), Northern Kingfish ( Menticirrhus 


November 2015 


5-33 


NUREG-2168 








Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


saxatilis), and Gizzard Shad ( Dorosoma cepedianum) are evident since the 1986-87 sampling. 
Of note, impingement data for SGS from 2008-10 (PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; 
PSEG 2011-TN2571), were also examined and compared with the 2003-07 SGS impingement 
data (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; 
PSEG 2008-TN2569) to assess any recent deviation from the previous 2003-07 trend (data not 
shown in table). Gizzard Shad, Northern Kingfish, Black Drum ( Pogonias cromis), and Atlantic 
Menhaden ( Brevoortia tyrannus) all increased by a factor of 2 in the more recent sampling. 
However, Blueback Herring ( Alosa aestivalis ), Atlantic Croaker, Butterfish ( Peprilus triacanthus), 
Channel Catfish, Scup ( Stenotomus chrysops), and Spotted Hake ( Urophycis regia) were all 
reduced by a factor of 2 in the more recent sampling. These deviations in annual averages may 
represent changes to environmental conditions at the larger regional scale and do not appear to 
reflect any longer term trends in abundance. 

Impingement mortality was not reported during the HCGS impingement sampling in 1986 or 
1987 (VJSA 1988-TN2564; ECS 1989-TN2572). However, sampling at SGS between 1986 
and 1987 and between 2003 and 2010 reported between 97 percent and 100 percent live, 
undamaged blue crab and live condition for greater than 50 percent of the finfish impinged 
with the exception of White Perch and Atlantic Croaker juveniles between 1986 and 1987 
(VJSA 1988-TN2564; ECS 1989-TN2572; PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 
2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010- 
TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571). 

Historical impingement rates for the aquatic community from SGS (2003-10) and HCGS (1986- 
87) were used to estimate potential impingement losses associated with the operation of a new 
nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006- 
TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010- 
TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571; VJSA 1988-TN2564; ECS 1989-TN2572). HCGS is more similar 
to a new plant at the PSEG Site because it has a closed-cycle cooling system design, which 
differs from the once-through cooling system of SGS. SGS withdraws larger volumes of water 
from the Delaware River Estuary with a faster through-screen velocity (0.9 fps), and therefore, 
SGS would be expected to impinge more fish than the closed-cycle cooling systems of HCGS 
and a new power plant. 

PSEG examined the most recent HCGS impingement data from 1986 and 1987 with same year 
impingement data for SGS and derived a correction factor by dividing the HCGS data by the 
SGS data to allow comparison between the two plants and normalize the differences in intake 
volume and velocity (VJSA 1988-TN2564; ECS 1989-TN2572). Examination of 1986-87 
density impingement rates for finfish show a total impingement density average of 
2,095.4 organisms per million cubic meters of total water volume for HCGS and 2,643.6 
organisms per million cubic meters of total water volume for SGS. When combining both finfish 
and blue crab impingement rates, HCGS has a total impingement density average of 4,545.5 
organisms per million cubic meters of total water volume and 4,186.1 organisms per million 
cubic meters of total water volume for SGS. The more recent impingement rates for SGS 
between 2003 and 2010 report a finfish impingement rate of 3,152.5 organisms per million cubic 
meters of total water volume and a combined blue crab and finfish impingement rate of 3,842.9 
organisms per million cubic meters of total water volume. Therefore, a correction factor may not 
be needed to assess total organism impingement, and PSEG used a conservative approach for 


NUREG-2168 


5-34 


November 2015 



Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


assessing potential impingement rates for a new nuclear power plant in its ER. However, for 
comparative purposes, PSEG presented in its ER both the conservative assumption and the 
correction factor for estimating potential impingement rates (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Sampled total finfish density was moderately lower at HCGS relative to SGS using data sets 
from either 1986 to 1987 or 2003 to 2010, possibly because of the lower approach velocities to 
the HCGS screens. The only commercially important invertebrate vulnerable to substantial 
impingement by the intake structure of a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site is the blue 
crab. Blue crab densities for impingement samples at SGS were 690.4 per million cubic meters 
of total water volume between 2003 and 2010 and 1,542.5 per million cubic meters of total 
water volume in 1986 to 1987. At HCGS, blue crabs were impinged at a mean rate of 2,450.1 
per million cubic meters of total water volume in 1986-87 (see Table 5-3). It is possible that the 
rate of impingement at a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site for blue crab may be less 
than in 1986-87 because there was a significant drop in impingement abundance of blue crab 
at SGS between the sampling dates in the 1980s and the average of 8 years of more recent 
sampling. 

The applicant estimated impingement rates of finfish at a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG 
Site by multiplying the more recent SGS impingement densities by a correction factor 
representing the ratio of the total finfish impingement density at HCGS (1986-87) to that of SGS 
for the same period. Recent examination of these data sets and impingement rates derives the 
correction factor to be 0.79 (2,095.4/2,643.6). It is reasonable to use the historical HCGS 
impingement rate correction factor for the estimate of impingement rate at a new plant at the 
PSEG Site because the intake design velocity for a new plant (less than 0.5 fps) is more 
comparable to HCGS than to SGS (roughly 0.9 fps). Thus, the estimated total impingement rate 
of finfish due to operation of a new plant is 2,490.5 per million cubic meters of total water 
volume compared to the more recent impingement rate of 3,152.5 per million cubic meters of 
total water volume for SGS. White Perch, Atlantic Croaker, and Weakfish (Cynoscion regalis) 
are expected to compose the majority of the impingement total. The proposed maximum rate of 
water withdrawal for a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site is equivalent to 3.7 percent of 
the intake flow at SGS (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Assuming a constant withdrawal of 78,196 gpm 
for a new plant, and using the 79 percent correction factor for finfish impingement, a new plant 
would result in impingement of an estimated 386,526 fish annually. Using the more 
conservative assumption with no correction factor, and a maximum rate of water withdrawal for 
a new plant of 3.7 percent of the intake flow of SGS, about 489,148 fish would be impinged 
annually at a new plant at the PSEG Site (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

The intake structure for a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site would contain traveling 
screens to collect debris and fish. Impinged organic debris and aquatic organisms would be 
washed from the traveling screens and returned to the Delaware River Estuary. Mixed organic 
and human-made debris (e.g., wood, plastic) collected from the trash racks would be disposed 
of offsite. 

Details about the screen design, screen wash, and fish return system are not available, but 
PSEG has stated in its ER that the screen design would be compliant with EPA 316(b) Phase I 
requirements specified in 40 CFR 125.84 (TN254), similar to screens at HCGS, and would 
include low-pressure screen washes to safely remove impinged organisms and water-filled fish 


November 2015 


5-35 


NUREG-2168 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


buckets to improve the survival of screen-washed fish and shellfish until they are transported 
back to the Delaware River Estuary by the fish return system (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

In terms of numbers, the estimated conservative impingement of most fish species is a small 
percentage of the commercial and recreational harvests of these species in Delaware and New 
Jersey, as described in Section 2.4.2. Blue crab, Weakfish, White Perch, and Atlantic Croaker 
potentially would have the highest impingement rates at a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG 
Site. However, it is expected that a large portion of these impinged organisms would survive 
because of the comparable impingement mortality recorded for SGS with a higher through- 
screen velocity than would be used for a new plant. Based on the planned low through-screen 
intake velocity and the use of closed-cycle cooling, the review team concludes that impacts from 
impingement of aquatic organisms at a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site would be 
minor. 

Entrainment 

Small, passively drifting, or weakly swimming aquatic organisms that are drawn into the intake 
and pass through the openings in the traveling screens and through a closed-cycle cooling 
system are conservatively assessed to have 100 percent mortality (NRC 2000-TN614). Some 
entrained organisms are present year-round, such as phytoplankton and many types of 
zooplankton. These diverse plant and animal species (often referred to as holoplankton) are 
abundant throughout the Delaware River Estuary and have short generation times, so they can 
rapidly replace the losses due to entrainment, heat shock, and other stresses. Other entrained 
organisms, such as the larval stages offish, crabs, and other bottom-dwelling crustaceans, are 
present only seasonally near the proposed intake of a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG 
Site. However, many of these seasonally planktonic organisms (collectively referred to as 
meroplankton) have longer life spans and generation times, so losses from cooling system 
effects are not as readily replaced. 

The history of entrainment sampling at SGS and analyses of entrainment losses are described 
in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, 
Supplement 45 Regarding Hope Creek Generating Station and Salem Nuclear Generating 
Station, Units 1 and 2, Final Report (NRC 2011-TN3131). Most recently, entrainment offish 
eggs, larvae, juveniles, and adults in the SGS cooling water system was studied between 2003 
and 2010 (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007- 
TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011- 
TN2571). Over the 8-year period, between 25 and 38 species were identified each year among 
the entrained fish (eggs, larvae, small juveniles, and adults). Of these, 92 percent of the 
entrainment samples were composed of two species: Bay Anchovy (75.3 percent) and Naked 
Goby ( Gobiosoma bosc) (16.7 percent). Additional species that composed over 98 percent of 
all entrained species included Atlantic Croaker (3.5 percent), Striped Bass (1.4 percent), 
Weakfish (0.8 percent), Atlantic Menhaden (0.4 percent), and Atlantic Silverside (0.4 percent). 
Bay Anchovy was the most abundantly entrained species for the egg (99.7 percent) and adult 
(57 percent) life stages, while Naked Goby was the most abundantly entrained larval species 
(49 percent), and Atlantic Croaker was the most abundantly entrained juvenile species 
(56 percent) (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007- 
TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011- 


NUREG-2168 


5-36 


November 2015 





Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


TN2571). Seasonal vulnerability to entrainment is species-specific. For example, eggs, larvae, 
and juveniles of Bay Anchovy were most numerous in entrainment samples in summer months 
(June and July), whereas Atlantic Croaker juveniles were most abundant in the fall (October and 
November) (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007- 
TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569: PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011- 
TN2571). In general, the densities of entrained individuals for most fish species were greatest 
in the spring and/or summer, corresponding to the spawning periods for these species. Total 
densities of all fish life stages in the entrainment samples ranged from 54.0/100 m 3 (2003) to 
264.2/100 m 3 (2007) and averaged 125.0/100 m 3 (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

PSEG applied estimated annual entrainment rates from SGS directly to calculate entrainment 
rates for a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site. The entrainment rates at SGS were 
applied to a new plant without a correction factor because entrained organisms are planktonic. 
Entrainment rates are a function of water withdrawal rates and are not influenced by 
through-screen velocities. Entrainment of holoplankton and meroplankton would be much 
smaller for a new plant than for SGS because of the smaller volume of water withdrawn by the 
closed-cycle system at a new plant. Based on the small volume of water withdrawn for the 
closed-cycle cooling water system at a new plant at the PSEG Site, the annual entrainment of 
organisms during operation of the intake system is expected to be minor and average less than 
125 organisms per 100 m 3 . The species most likely to be entrained is the Bay Anchovy, a 
highly abundant species in the area with females spawning every 4 to 5 days over the spawning 
season (Zastrow et al. 1991-TN2670). 

Cooling Water Discharge Impacts 

Blowdown from the cooling towers. SWS. and other aqueous waste streams at a new nuclear 
power plant at the PSEG Site would be combined and discharged to the Delaware River 
Estuary at an average flow rate of 50,516 gpm (113 cfs) and a velocity of 9.2 fps. as described 
in Table 3-1. The submerged 48-in.-diameter discharge pipe would be located 8,000 ft north of 
the SGS discharge pipe and 2.500 ft north of the HCGS discharge pipe. The outlet of the 
discharge pipe would be 100 ft from the shoreline, 12 ft below mean lower low water and 3 ft 
above the river bottom (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Relative to the Delaware River Estuary, the 
discharged water would have an elevated temperature and increased concentration of both 
natural chemical constituents and chemical contaminants. Because of the tidal nature of the 
Delaware River Estuary in this area, the direction of the thermal discharge plume would vary 
with the tidal cycle. 

Thermal Impacts 

Potential thermal impacts on aquatic organisms could include heat stress, cold shock, and the 
creation of favorable conditions for invasive species. 

As described in Section 5.2.3.1. the portion of the Delaware River Estuary where discharge 
would occur is located in Zone 5 between Delaware RM 78.8 and RM 48.2. The DRBC 
temperature-related standards for Zone 5 require that the discharge-induced water temperature 
increases above the ambient water temperature in the river outside the permitted HDA may not 
increase by more than 4°F (2.2°C) from September through May and by 1,5 = F (0.8 C C) from 


November 2015 


5-37 


NUREG-2168 



Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


June through August, with a year-round maximum water temperature of 86°F (30°C) (18 CFR 
Part 410-TN3235; DRBC 2011-TN2371) (Figure 5-2). Recent trawling of the Delaware River 
Estuary zone in the vicinity of SGS and HCGS between 2003 and 2010 has not identified 
significant shifts in species abundances near the SGS and HCGS discharge areas compared to 
adjacent zones (PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007- 
TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011- 
TN2571). The volume of the thermal discharge from a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG 
Site (50,516 gpm) is only 2.4 percent of that from SGS (about 2,100,000 gpm circulated through 
the once-through cooling system) (PSEG 2015-TN4280). As discussed in Section 5.2.3.1, the 
thermal plume of the discharge (defined by the 1,5°F temperature excess) from a new plant 
would have a maximum extent of about 700 ft into the river from the discharge location, about 
300 ft upstream from the discharge, and about 500 ft downstream from the discharge. This 
plume would be contained completely within the existing SGS HDA and would not be expected 
to impede fish migration. During flood tide conditions, when the median water temperature 
exceeds 79.4°F, the review team estimated that a portion of the thermal plume would exceed 
86°F due to the cumulative effects from SGS, HCGS, and a new plant (3.6°F, 1.5°F, 1.5°F, 
respectively; see Figure 5-2). However, the combination of high-velocity discharge, turbulence 
in the discharge outlet area, and rapid mixing of the discharge effluent would limit the size of the 
thermal plume. 

A factor related to thermal discharges that may affect aquatic biota is cold shock. Cold shock 
occurs when aquatic organisms that have been acclimated to warm water are exposed to a 
sudden temperature decrease. This sometimes occurs when single-unit power plants shut 
down suddenly in winter or when an unseasonable cold weather event occurs. Cold shock is 
less likely to occur at a multiple-unit plant because the temperature decrease from shutting 
down one unit is moderated by the heated discharge from the units that continue to operate. 
Based on the foregoing, any thermal impacts on the fish populations due to cold shock would be 
expected to be minor. 

Chemical Impacts 

As described in Section 3.2.1.2, the cycles of concentration increase the concentration of TDS 
and minerals in the blowdown. In addition, the blowdown would contain chemical additives such 
as biocides and pH-adjusting chemicals to ensure proper functioning of the cooling towers. 
Predicted concentrations of dissolved chemical constituents in the discharges from the cooling 
water and other systems are expected to be compliant and controlled by the terms of the 
NJPDES permit that would be issued for a new plant at the PSEG Site (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Physical Impacts 

Because of the increased temperature and chemical content of the discharged water compared 
to ambient conditions, the plume is expected to be negatively buoyant (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 
Due to the discharge’s high velocity of 9.2 fps, there would be rapid mixing with tidal currents 
upstream and downstream, with some potential for scouring occurring at the point of discharge. 
To minimize the scouring potential, PSEG would place riprap or other engineered features near 
the end of the discharge pipe and reduce the possible interactions of the discharge plume with 
bottom habitats and bottom-dwelling aquatic organisms (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 


NUREG-2168 


5-38 


November 2015 






Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Use of the HCGS barge slip and the new barge storage and unloading facility are expected to 
be infrequent during operation. However, propeller wash may cause localized scouring and 
sedimentation within the barge slip. Because this area would be previously disturbed during site 
preparation and used during transport of building materials, it is unlikely that the temporary 
habitat disruption would have adverse effects on the aquatic communities in the area 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). Adjacent, undisturbed habitat is available, and mobile aquatic 
organisms would likely avoid the barge slip area. 

Dredging may be required to maintain use of the HCGS barge slip and the intake channel as 
well as barge storage and unloading facility during operation. Any effects to water quality, such 
as siltation, during these infrequent periods would be temporary and would be managed through 
the use of Federal and State permitting requirements for use of BMPs, and dredged material 
disposal would be in approved upland disposal areas (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Mobile organisms 
in the area would avoid activities involved in dredging and could use adjacent, undisturbed 
habitat during the temporary disruption. 

Based on the foregoing, the review team concludes that the thermal, chemical, and physical 
impacts of discharge from a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site on habitat and aquatic 
biota in the Delaware River Estuary would be minor. 

Stormwater Management 

As described in 5.2.3.1, PSEG would develop an SWPPP to minimize stormwater drainage 
effects to nearby surface waters. The SWPPP would be required to meet NJPDES stormwater 
discharge requirements. 

5.3.2.2 Aquatic Resources - Offsite Areas 

Maintenance of the proposed causeway could result in soil disturbance (erosion, suspended 
sediments, sedimentation) and the addition of road chemicals to offsite water bodies. The 
resulting water-quality degradation could in turn affect aquatic biota. 

Causeway maintenance activities could temporarily degrade surface-water quality and aquatic 
habitats. PSEG expects to minimize the impacts of such activities by using temporary work 
mats and other impact-reducing measures. The presence of the causeway would introduce 
permanent shading patterns for the marsh creeks crossed by the causeway, which would 
reduce sunlight required for primary productivity. While primary productivity may be reduced for 
these areas, abundant adjacent marsh creek resources would be expected to remain 
unaffected. Compliance with Federal and State permits is expected to prevent degradation of 
water quality and aquatic resources through use of required BMPs to minimize impacts 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

5.3.2.3 important A qua tic Species and Habitats 

This section describes the potential impacts to important aquatic species and habitats from 
operation and maintenance of a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site. Important species 
include Federally threatened, endangered, or candidate species; those species listed by the 
States of New Jersey and Delaware as threatened, endangered, or of special concern; 


November 2015 


5-39 


NUREG-2168 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


commercially or recreationally important fish and shellfish; or species that affect the well-being 
of the above species or are critical to the structure and function of a valuable ecological system. 
Important aquatic species and aquatic habitats in the vicinity of the PSEG Site are described in 
Section 2.4.2.3. 

Important Recreational or Commercial Aquatic Species 

In the Delaware River Estuary in the vicinity of the PSEG Site, 21 species of finfish have been 
identified as being commercially or recreationally important in New Jersey or Delaware (see 
Section 2.4.2.3). In addition to these fish species, five species of invertebrates, which occur in 
the region, are commercially harvested in New Jersey and Delaware, including the blue crab, 
eastern oyster ( Crassostrea virginica ), knobbed whelk ( Busycon carica), channeled whelk 
(Busycotypus canaliculatus), and northern quahog clam ( Mercenaria mercenaria) (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280). A sixth invertebrate species, the horseshoe crab ( Limulus polyphemus), is harvested 
in Delaware. Since 2008 there has been a moratorium in place on the harvest of horseshoe 
crabs in New Jersey (ASMFC 2014-TN3511). 

Previous impingement and entrainment studies at SGS and HCGS commonly collected the 
following commercially or recreationally important species: Weakfish, Atlantic Croaker, White 
Perch, Striped Bass, and blue crab. Although these species were observed in these studies, 
trawling and seining studies in the Delaware River Estuary show that these populations 
experience annual changes in relative density throughout the watershed, yet remain abundant 
(see Section 2.4.2; PSEG 2004-TN2565; PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 
2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011- 
TN2571). 

Trawl surveys in the PSEG sampling zone near SGS, HCGS, and the PSEG Site show reduced 
numbers of commercially and recreationally important species when compared to other regions 
in the estuary because most of these species prefer marine habitats (PSEG 2004-TN2565; 
PSEG 2005-TN2566; PSEG 2006-TN2567; PSEG 2007-TN2568; PSEG 2008-TN2569; PSEG 
2009-TN2513; PSEG 2010-TN2570; PSEG 2011-TN2571). Although eastern oyster beds are 
present within 6 mi of Artificial Island to the south, these oyster beds are not likely to be affected 
by intake or discharge operations. Therefore, cooling water intake and discharge operation at a 
new plant is not expected to have noticeable effects on commercially and recreationally 
important species that occur in the Delaware River Estuary. 

Because a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site would have a closed-cycle cooling 
system, the amounts of water withdrawn and discharged would be a small fraction of the 
Delaware River Estuary flow. In addition, traveling intake screens with a low through-mesh 
velocity of less than 0.5 fps would permit the survival of a portion of the impinged aquatic 
organisms that are returned to the river (Section 5.3.2.1). The effects of operation of a new 
plant’s cooling system on important aquatic species in the Delaware River Estuary are expected 
to be minor. 

Non-native and Nuisance Species 

Invasive species that may occur in the Delaware River Estuary include the Asian shore crab 
(Hemigrapsus sanguineus ), Chinese mitten crab {Eriocheir sinensis), the Northern Snakehead 


NUREG-2168 


5-40 


November 2015 




Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


(Channa argus), and the Flathead Catfish ( Pylodictis olivaris). While each of these species has 
been documented in the vicinity of the PSEG Site, there are no reports that would indicate they 
have increased in abundance and would pose a risk to operation of a new nuclear power plant, 
nor would operation of a new plant be expected to increase occurrences of these species. 

Aquatic Threatened or Endangered Species 

As part of their responsibilities under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 
1531 et seq. -TN1010), the review team prepared a BA documenting potential impacts on 
Federally listed threatened or endangered aquatic species as a result of operating a new 
nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site. The loggerhead sea turtle ( Caretta caretta ), Atlantic 
green sea turtle ( Chelonia mydas), Kemp’s ridley sea turtle ( Lepidochelys kempii), Atlantic 
Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus), and Shortnose Sturgeon [A. brevirostrum) are 
Federally listed threatened or endangered species known to occur in the vicinity of the PSEG 
Site (NMFS 2010-TN2171; NMFS 2013-TN2804). A BA is provided in Appendix F, and the 
findings and determinations are summarized in this section. No critical habitat has been 
designated for species under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in 
the action area (NMFS 2014-TN4238). The sea turtles and sturgeon do not nest or reproduce 
in the vicinity of the PSEG Site intake or discharge. Therefore, the impact of intake or discharge 
operations on newly hatched turtles or eggs and fry of sturgeon would be insignificant. Because 
the flow requirements under 316(b) require through-screen velocities of 0.5 fps or less, any 
juvenile, subadult, and adult healthy sea turtles or sturgeon that enter the intake area during 
operation would be able to swim away. However, injured or moribund species may become 
entrapped on the intake trash bars or traveling screens. There have been no documented 
protected species found on the intake trash bars or traveling screens for HCGS, which uses 
intake and discharge technologies (closed-cycle cooling) similar to what is being proposed for a 
new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site. For the once-through cooling intakes at SGS, live 
and dead loggerhead, Atlantic green, and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles, as well as Shortnose and 
Atlantic Sturgeon, have been collected from the intake bays or trash racks and documented 
extensively as part of the operation parameters for SGS (see Section 2.4.2.3). Discharge of 
effluent from a new nuclear power plant would not significantly affect Federally or State-listed 
species due to rapid mixing under tidal influence in the immediate Delaware River Estuary 
discharge area. Dredging or maintenance activities for the HCGS barge slip, intake channel, 
barge storage and unloading facility, haul road bulkhead, and causeway are expected to create 
temporary, localized disturbances that could be minimized and/or avoided using BMPs required 
to minimize impacts to water quality under Federal and State permits. This may also be 
accomplished through permit conditions in the State and Federal permits, and as such would 
not adversely affect any listed species. Therefore, operation of a new nuclear power plant at 
the PSEG Site may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, juvenile, subadult, and adult sea 
turtles or sturgeon. The review team received comments from the NMFS regarding the 
uncertainty of operations effects for the ESP permitting process (NMFS 2014-TN4203). The 
review team and NMFS discussed that PSEG would need to apply for an operating license or a 
combined construction permit and operating license (COL) in the future and that NRC would 
need to assess operations effects in another BA with specific operating conditions that are not 
currently available for the ESP. NMFS agreed that assessment of operations effects and 
addressing operations comments would not be needed for consultation for the ESP (NRC 2015- 
TN4209). 


November 2015 


5-41 


NUREG-2168 





Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Essential Fish Habitat 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 USC 1801 et seq. - 
TN1061) defines adverse effects to essential fish habitat (EFH) as including “direct or indirect 
physical, chemical, or biological alterations of the waters or substrate and loss of, or injury to, 
benthic organisms, prey species, and their habitat. . . A new nuclear power plant at the 
PSEG Site would affect EFH primarily through operation of the cooling water system. Water 
withdrawn for cooling is no longer available as fish habitat, and fish and their food can be lost 
due to impingement and entrainment. Blowdown water returned to the Delaware River Estuary 
as heated effluent would change the natural thermal and water current regimes in fish habitat. 
Consequently, the proposed action has the potential to alter at least some aspects of EFH. The 
EFH assessment in Appendix F contains a detailed discussion of potential impacts on EFH. 

5.3.2.4 A qua tic Monitoring During Operation 

The NJPDES permit for a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site would have monitoring 
requirements related to thermal and chemical constituents of waste streams. Discharge 
monitoring of regulated chemical constituents would be part of ongoing operations of a new 
plant to ensure compliance with NJPDES permit limits. Monitoring of intake effects (entrainment 
and impingement) is required as a condition of the NJPDES permit and would be similar to the 
2 years of initial monitoring required for HCGS, which also employs a closed-cycle cooling 
system. The NJPDES permit is required for the entire duration of site operation and must be 
renewed every 5 years, with provisions for updating monitoring programs and parameters, as 
necessary (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

5.3.2.5 Summary of Operational Impacts to Aquatic Resources 

Operation of a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site would increase the entrainment and 
impingement of aquatic organisms and the discharge of heat and chemical contaminants to the 
Delaware River Estuary that are already occurring as a result of the operation of SGS and 
HCGS. However, because a new plant would use a closed-cycle cooling system and a fish 
screening system designed to increase the survival of impinged fish, these impacts are 
expected to have no more than minor impacts to the aquatic resources in the area. Other 
impacts from operational activities, such as maintenance dredging and causeway maintenance, 
are expected to be minor. Based on this review, the review team has determined the impacts 
resulting from operational and maintenance activities would be SMALL. 

5.4 Socioeconomic Impacts 

Operation of a new nuclear power plant on the PSEG Site could affect individual communities, 
the surrounding region, and minority and low-income populations. This section assesses the 
impacts of operations-related activities and the associated workforce on the region. The review 
team reviewed the PSEG ER (PSEG 2015-TN4280) and verified the data sources used in its 
application by examining cited references and independently confirming data in discussions with 
community members and public officials (NRC 2012-TN2499). To verify data in the ER, the 
review team requested clarifications and additional information from PSEG as needed. Unless 
otherwise specified in the sections below, the review team has drawn upon verified data from 
PSEG (PSEG 2012-TN2450; PSEG 2012-TN2370). Where the review team used different 


NUREG-2168 


5-42 


November 2015 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


analytical methods or additional information for its own analysis, the EIS includes explanatory 
discussions and citations for the additional sources. 

Although the review team considered the entire region within a 50-mi radius of the PSEG Site 
when assessing socioeconomic impacts, because of expected commuter patterns, the 
distribution of residential communities in the area, and the likely socioeconomic impacts, the 
review team identified a primary economic impact area composed of the four counties nearest 
to the site—Salem, Cumberland, and Gloucester Counties in New Jersey and New Castle 
County in Delaware—as the area with the greatest potential for economic impacts. 

Section 5.4.1 presents a summary of the physical impacts of the project. Section 5.4.2 provides 
a description of the demographic impacts. Section 5.4.3 describes the economic impacts, 
including impacts on the local and state economy and tax revenues. Section 5.4.4 describes 
the impacts on infrastructure and community services. Section 5.4.5 summarizes the 
socioeconomic impacts of operations activities at the PSEG Site. 

5.4.1 Physical Impacts 

Operations at the PSEG Site would cause physical impacts to nearby communities, including 
noise, odors, exhausts, thermal emissions, and visual intrusions. The review team expects 
some of these impacts would be mitigated by compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and 
local environmental regulations and site-specific permit conditions. This section addresses 
potential physical impacts that may affect people, buildings, and roads. 

5. 4. 7.7 Workers and the Local Public 

This section discusses potential effects of air emissions and noise on workers, nearby residents, 
and nearby users of recreational facilities. The PSEG Site is located adjacent to the existing 
HCGS and SGS, Units 1 and 2, in Lower Alloways Creek Township, Salem County, New 
Jersey. The site is located on the southern part of Artificial Island on the east bank of the 
Delaware River, about 15 mi south of the Delaware Memorial Bridge, 18 mi south of Wilmington, 
Delaware, 30 mi southwest of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and 7.5 mi southwest of Salem, New 
Jersey. 

The nearest residences to the PSEG Site are located about 2.8 mi to the west in New Castle 
County, Delaware, and about 3.4 mi to the east-northeast in the Hancock’s Bridge community 
of Salem County, New Jersey (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The closest recreational areas are the 
Augustine Beach Access Area and Augustine Wildlife Area, which are approximately 3.1 and 
3.6 mi, respectively, across the Delaware River from the PSEG Site. Because of distance and 
intervening foliage, residents and visitors to recreational areas would experience minimal 
impacts. 

All activities related to operation at the PSEG Site would occur within the site boundary and 
would be performed in compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 
standards, BMPs, and other applicable regulatory and permit requirements. 

Because of the close proximity of workers to the sources of operations-related physical impacts, 
onsite workers involved in operational activities at the PSEG Site would experience the most 


November 2015 


5-43 


NUREG-2168 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


direct exposure to physical impacts, followed by operational workers at the adjacent HCGS and 
SGS. Excessive noise is expected inside some buildings, so workers would wear personal 
protective equipment. Auxiliary boilers, cooling towers, emergency diesel generators, and/or 
combustion engines would be required to meet workplace and environmental standards before 
start-up. The PSEG Site would comply with OSHA standards for onsite exposure to noise, 
vapors, dusts, and other air contaminants for workers. Operations workers also would receive 
safety training. Emergency first aid care would be available, and regular health and safety 
monitoring would be conducted (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Consequently, the review team 
determined the physical impacts to onsite workers would also be minimal. 

5.4.1.2 Noise 

The main sources of noise during operations at the PSEG Site would be from the switchyard, 
transformers, and cooling towers. Fan-assisted natural draft cooling towers (NDCTs) are the 
bounding noise element with 60 dBA at 1,000 ft. At 10,000 ft, the noise level would be 41 dBA. 
New Jersey provides regulatory limits for continuous noise sources. During the day, New 
Jersey has a 65-dBA limit at the property line of industrial facilities. New Jersey also has 65- 
dBA limits at residential property lines during the day and 50-dBA nighttime limits. Delaware 
has similar regulatory limits of 65 dBA at residential property lines and 55-dBA nighttime limits. 
The closest residences are 14,700 ft west and 15,900 ft east of the site. The closest 
recreational areas are even farther than the residential areas (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Because 
of these distances and regulatory limits, the review team does not expect residents of the area 
to experience impacts in the form of noise during operations. Projected noise impacts from 
operation at the PSEG Site are discussed in further detail in Section 5.8.2. 

5.4.1.3 Air Quality 

The main sources for emissions from plant operation are cooling towers, auxiliary boilers for 
plant heating and startup, engine-driven emergency equipment, and diesel generators and/or 
combustion turbines. Cooling tower emissions are discussed separately in Section 5.7. The 
bounding PPE assumptions are for six backup diesel generators. Emissions sources discussed 
above would be small, would be used infrequently or mostly during the winter months (except 
the cooling tower), and would require permits from NJDEP. Therefore, the review team 
concludes that physical impacts on air quality would be minimal. Projected air emissions and 
impacts on air quality from operation at the PSEG Site are discussed in further detail in 
Section 5.7. 

5.4.1.4 Buildings 

Activities associated with operations at the PSEG Site would not affect offsite buildings because 
of distance and intervening terrain. Onsite buildings are designed to withstand any impact from 
operational activities. Consequently, the review team determines the operations impacts on 
onsite and offsite buildings would be minimal. 

5.4.1.5 Transportation 

This EIS assesses the impact of workers commuting to and from the PSEG Site from three 
perspectives: socioeconomic impacts from congestion and reductions in levels of service 


NUREG-2168 


5-44 


November 2015 




Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


(LOS), air-quality impacts resulting from the emissions from vehicles, and the potential health 
impacts caused by traffic-related accidents. Only the physical impacts are addressed here. 
Section 2.5.2.3 describes the local transportation network around the PSEG Site, and 
Figure 2-23 depicts the road and highway system in the economic impact area. Section 4.4.1.3 
discusses the building impacts on roads in the economic impact area. Section 5.4.4.1 
addresses traffic impacts. Air-quality impacts from vehicle emissions are addressed in 
Section 5.7, and human health impacts are addressed in Section 5.8. 

Roads 

Use of area roadways by commuting workers could contribute to physical deterioration of 
roadway surfaces. However, some or all of the mitigation measures incorporated during the 
building phase would remain in place during operations (see Section 4.4.1.3). Given the much 
smaller volume of traffic on the roads during operations compared to during building, the review 
team determines that the overall impacts on road quality would be less than the impacts on road 
quality from building activities. Therefore, the operations-related impacts on road quality would 
be minimal. 

Water 

As discussed in Section 2.5.2.3, there is an existing barge facility at the HCGS site. To support 
delivery of large components and equipment for building, PSEG indicated that the existing 
barge facility at HCGS would need to be modified, and a parallel barge facility would need to be 
constructed. Both would be built to regulatory requirements. The barge slips and the expected 
barge deliveries are expected to have a negligible impact on river traffic on the Delaware River. 

Rail 

There are no railroads within about 7 mi of the PSEG Site (NRC 2011-TN3131). PSEG has not 
indicated it would extend a rail line to the site. The review team expects no impacts to rail lines 
in the area. 

5.4.1.6 Aesthetics 

Similar to the discussion in Section 4.4.1.4, the completed PSEG Site would be visible primarily 
to onsite workers. Aesthetic impacts to offsite areas would occur mainly from the introduction of 
large new elements into the visual environment, including cooling towers, reactor domes, and 
an elevated causeway. 

A new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site would further contribute to the industrial character 
of the existing PSEG property, which also includes HCGS and SGS. The principal visual 
features added by a new plant would be cooling towers (up to 590 ft tall) and their associated 
plumes, reactor buildings, and the elevated causeway. Under Federal Aviation Administration 
regulations, the cooling towers would be appropriately marked with lighting, making them visible 
during nighttime hours. Figure 5-4 and Figure 5-5 depict how the developed PSEG Site would 
appear from several sensitive locations during daylight. PSEG modified these photographs by 
adding duplicated images of the existing HCGS facilities to simulate the appearance of potential 
new facilities at the PSEG Site (PSEG 2012-TN1489). 


November 2015 


5-45 


NUREG-2168 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Augustine Beach Access 


Hypothetical Towers 



Collins Beach Road, DE 


Hypothetical Towers 



Figure 5-4. Simulations of the Appearance of New Nuclear Power Plant Facilities at the 
PSEG Site from Augustine Beach Access and Collins Beach Road, New 
Castle County, Delaware (arrows indicate which towers belong to the 
proposed project and were added to the photograph for analytical purposes.) 
(Source: PSEG 2012-TN1489) 


NUREG-2168 


5-46 


November 2015 

























Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 



Figure 5-5. Simulations of the Appearance of New Nuclear Power Plant Facilities 

at the PSEG Site and the Proposed Causeway from the Hancock’s Bridge 
Community and the Money Island Estuary Platform in Salem County, New 
Jersey (Source: PSEG 2012-TN1489) 


Figure 5-4 reflects how a new nuclear power plant would appear from two recreational areas in 
New Castle County, Delaware. Views from nearby residential areas along the Delaware shore 
would be similar. Delaware County officials indicated that residents of Delaware would notice 
the new construction but would become accustomed to the viewshed once the project is 
finished (NRC 2012-TN2499). Figure 5-5 depicts how the new nuclear power plant might 
appear from the Hancock’s Bridge community and from the viewing platform along Money 
Island Road, both in Salem County, New Jersey. 


The additional structures on the PSEG Site would be clearly visible from both of these locations. 
The elevated causeway would be a dominant feature in the view from the Money Island Road 


November 2015 


5-47 


NUREG-2168 




































Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


viewing platform and likely in the immediately adjacent Abbotts Meadow WMA, which receives 
recreational use for hunting and bird watching. 

The height of the plumes from the NDCTs would depend on weather conditions and winds. The 
median plume height for the cooling tower would be 1,574 ft above ground level and would be 
higher during the winter months (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The plume would look similar to that of 
the HCGS cooling tower. 

Although a new plant and causeway would be in keeping with the industrial character of the 
existing PSEG property, the increased intensity of the visual presence of structures on the 
PSEG Site as well as the introduction of the elevated causeway as a dominant visual element in 
a sensitive recreational location would constitute a noticeable, but not destabilizing, impact. 

This impact would be due to the essential character of the new structures and would not be 
amenable to mitigation measures. 

5.4.1.7 Summary of Physical Impacts 

Based on the information provided by PSEG and the review team’s independent evaluation and 
outreach, the review team concludes that the physical impacts of operations-related activities on 
workers and the local public, buildings, and transportation would be SMALL, and no mitigation 
beyond that proposed by PSEG would be warranted. However, the addition of new cooling 
towers and new reactor domes at the PSEG Site, and the proposed causeway that traverses 
the Estuary Enhancement Program (EEP) area, would noticeably affect the aesthetic qualities 
from viewpoints in New Castle and Salem Counties. Thus, the review team concludes that a 
new nuclear power plant and causeway would have a MODERATE physical impact on aesthetic 
resources and that the impacts would not be amenable to mitigation. 

5.4.2 Demography 

PSEG anticipates it would need 600 employees for operations-related activities at the PSEG 
Site. Based on the current residential distribution of the HCGS and SGS operations workforces, 
PSEG estimated 82.6 percent of the operations workforce for a new plant would live in the 
economic impact area. In its ER, PSEG found SMALL impacts using this assumption and an 
assumed 100 percent in-migration of operations workers (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

According to a 1981 NRC study (Malhotra and Manninen 1981-TN1430), 40 to 60 percent of 
“nonconstruction” workforce in-migrated into the area surrounding the construction of a nuclear 
power plant. Given the large labor pool within a 50-mi radius, the long history of nuclear power 
operations in the economic impact area, and the existence of a Nuclear Energy Technology 
Program at Salem County Community College, the review team expects that many of the skills 
needed for the operations workforce can be found locally and that about 40 percent of the 
operations workforce (240 workers) would be in-migrants into the region. These workers would 
find homes according to the same residential distribution characteristics as the current SGS and 
HCGS operations workers. In other words, 82.6 percent of the in-migrants (198 workers) would 
reside in the economic impact area, and the remaining 42 workers would be sparsely distributed 
throughout the rest of the 50-mi region and beyond. 


NUREG-2168 


5-48 


November 2015 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


As discussed in Section 4.4, the review team assumes in-migrating workers would bring their 
families. Assuming a household size of 2.68, the review team predicts a population increase of 
643 people in the region and 530 in the economic impact area. PSEG records indicate that, of 
current HOGS and SGS employees who live in the economic impact area, 12.1 percent reside 
in Cumberland County, 17.7 percent in Gloucester County, 49.6 percent in Salem County, and 
20.6 in New Castle County (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The resulting increase in population within 
the economic impact area is summarized in Table 5-4. The in-migration of operations workers 
and their families would increase the population of the economic impact area by about five- 
hundredths of 1 percent. The increase would be most pronounced in Salem County, which 
would experience a population increase of about four-tenths of 1 percent. The review team 
considers such increases to be minimal for the counties in the economic impact area. 

Table 5-4. Estimated Population Increase in the Economic Impact Area During 


Operations 

County 

Workers 

Population 

Increase 

Projected 2020 
Population* 3 * 

Percent 

Increase 

New Castle 

41 

110 

571,579 

0.02 

Cumberland 

24 

64 

165,200 

0.04 

Gloucester 

35 

94 

310,300 

0.03 

Salem 

98 

262 

67,700 

0.39 

Total 

198 

530 

1,114,779 

0.05 


(a) Source: Table 2-15. 


Some of the workers that would be employed at the PSEG Site would have been previously 
unemployed. In 2013, the unemployment rate in Salem County was 6.3 percent (NJLWD- 
TN4339). Therefore, of the workforce that already lives in the region (360 workers), the review 
team assumes 22 of them would have been unemployed when hired by PSEG. Assuming the 
same distribution as the in-migrating workforce, 20.5 percent of the unemployed workers would 
already reside in New Castle County (5 workers), while 79.5 percent (17 workers) would already 
reside in the New Jersey counties of the economic impact area. In the economic impact area, 
220 jobs would have been filled between unemployed workers (22) and in-migrating workers 
(198). Some of these workers would already be at the site as part of the 342 operations and 
maintenance staff and 103 startup personnel during the building phase. The impacts of these 
workers are discussed in Section 4.4.2. 

In addition to the full-time operations workforce at the PSEG Site, 1,000 workers would be 
required every 18-24 months for outages. These workers would have a similar residential 
distribution as the HCGS Fall 2010, SGS Unit 1 Fall 2011, and SGS Unit 2 Spring 2011 outages 
(PSEG 2012-TN2370). About 70 percent of the outage workers (700 workers) would in-migrate 
into the economic impact area for less than a month at a time and then leave at the end of the 
outage. Because outages last less than a month, outage workers typically do not bring their 
families. The maximum size of the in-migrating workforce during operations (240 operations 
workers and 700 outage workers) is about one and a-half times the in-migrating peak 
employment building workforce (617). Because the in-migrating building phase workforce 
constituted less than one-fifth of 1 percent of the baseline population, the review team expects 
the demographic impact of in-migrating outage and operations workers to be similar to the 
demographic impacts during building, which were determined to be minimal. 


November 2015 


5-49 


NUREG-2168 








Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


The review team concludes that these levels of increase would not noticeably affect the 
demographic character of the economic impact area or any of its counties and, therefore, the 
impact would be SMALL. 

A small number of operations workers and their families would in-migrate to counties outside of 
the economic impact area. Their impact on any one jurisdiction would not be noticeable. The 
current and projected populations of the regional area are so large and the in-migrating 
population is so small that the in-migrating workers would represent less than 1 percent of the 
total population in any of the counties where these employees reside. Therefore, the review 
team concludes that the demographic impacts of operation on the remainder of the 50-mi region 
also would be SMALL. 

5.4.3 Economic Impacts to the Community 

This section evaluates the economic and tax impacts on the 50-mi region from operating a new 
nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site, focusing primarily on Salem, Cumberland, and 
Gloucester Counties in New Jersey and New Castle County, Delaware. The evaluation 
assesses the impacts and demands from the workforce for operating a new plant. As indicated 
in Section 5.4.2, the review team assumes that 198 workers would migrate into the economic 
impact area. Assuming a family size of 2.68, the review team assumes approximately 
530 people would move into the economic impact area. 

5 . 4.3 .7 Economy 

Operation of a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site would have a positive impact on the 
local and regional economy through direct employment of the operations workforce, purchases 
of materials and supplies for operation, and maintenance of the plant and any capital 
expenditures that occur within the region. 

PSEG would employ 600 full-time operations workers and 1,000 temporary (about 1 month) 
outage workers every 18-24 months. In 2004, the average income for employees at SGS and 
HCGS was $77,800 (NEI 2006-TN2491). Based on that number and according to the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics CPI Inflation Calculator, the 2013 average wage would be $95,869. For an 
annual workforce of 600, $57.5 million would be paid in annual wages to the region in 2013 
dollars. In the economic impact area, where 82.6 percent of the operations workers would 
reside, $47 million would be paid in annual wages. A total of $18.9 million would be paid 
annually to the 198 in-migrating workers into the economic impact area and $2.1 million to the 
22 formerly unemployed workers. 

PSEG would also pay the wages of the 1,000 outage workers that would come every 18 to 
24 months. Compared with workers required for construction, outage workers tend to be highly 
specialized and come from many different areas, companies, and vendors. To estimate the 
wage expenditures, the review team uses the annual per capita income in New Jersey, which is 
$53,181, or $4,431 a month. Assuming 1,000 workers for exactly 1 month are needed for 
outages, PSEG would spend $4,431 million every 18-24 months to outage workers. 
Approximately 30 percent of those outage workers would be from the economic impact area, so 
PSEG would spend about $1.32 million to local workers every 18-24 months. 


NUREG-2168 


5-50 


November 2015 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


PSEG would also purchase materials and supplies for operation and maintenance of the plant, 
and any capital expenditures that would occur in the region would also have direct and indirect 
effects on the local and regional economy. Table 5-5 shows the estimates for purchases by 
PSEG for operating activities at the new plant. PSEG has not selected a reactor technology, 
but the review team’s calculations are based on average purchases at HCGS and SGS from 
2005 to 2008. Because the new plant’s output would be a maximum of 2,200 MW(e), the 
review team assumes that it would have approximately 60 percent of the average annual 
purchases that occur at HCGS and SGS, which have a total output of 3,655 MW(e). As shown 
in Table 5-5, operations at the PSEG Site would provide an annual increase in economic activity 
over the current baseline. The purchases by PSEG during operations would support 
employment in other sectors of the local economy at vendors and shops that provide materials 
and supplies for operations. The U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis 
(BEA), Economics and Statistics Division, provides Regional Input-Output Modeling System 
regional multipliers for industry employment and earnings. The review team obtained multipliers 
from the BEA for the economic impact area. For every million dollars spent by PSEG on 
purchases of services, materials, and supplies, 3.8474 jobs are supported in the economic 
impact area (BEA 2013-TN2594). The annual spending on services, materials, and supplies 
would support approximately 60 additional jobs in the economic impact area. 


Table 5-5. Estimated Annual Purchases of Services and Materials During Operations 


County/ 

State (a) 

Average 2005- 
2008 Annual 
Purchases for 
HCGS and SGS* b > 

Purchases in 
2013 dollars* 0 ’ 

Annual 
Purchases 
for New 
Plant (d) 

Added 
Employment 
per $1 Million 
Spent 

New Castle 

$6,773,114 

$7,603,852 

$4,562,311 

17.6 

Cumberland 

$2,285,912 

$2,566,284 

$1,539,770 

5.9 

Gloucester 

$8,351,326 

$9,375,636 

$5,625,382 

21.6 

Salem 

$5,779,051 

$6,487,865 

$3,892,719 

15.0 

Economic Impact Area Total 

$23,189,403 

$26,033,637 

$15,620,182 

60.1 

Delaware (e) 

$7,618,649 

$8,553,094 

$5,131,856 

19.7 

New Jersey* e) 

$503,363,601 

$565,102,369 

$339,061,421 

1304.5 

Pennsylvania** 5 ’ 

$240,995,699 

$270,554,406 

$162,332,644 

624.6 

Other States 

$21,943,397 

$24,634,807 

$14,780,884 

56.9 

Total 

$797,110,749 

$894,878,313 

$536,926,988 

2065.8 


(a) Derived from Table 2.5-28 of ER (PSEG 2015-TN4280) and RAI Response Env-06, Question 2.5-8 
(PSEG 2012-TN2370). 

(b) Taken from total 2005-2008 amounts in Table 2.5-28 of ER and divided by 4. 

(c) Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator. Assuming 12.3% cumulative inflation rate from 2007 to 2013. 

(d) SGS/HCGS have an output of 3,655 MW(e). New plant would have maximum output of 2,200 MW(e). To 
calculate, take 2013 purchases for HCGS/SGS and multiply by 0.6. 

(e) These are estimates for each state as a whole, not just for the counties that fall within the 50-mi radius. 

New workers (i.e., in-migrating workers and those previously unemployed) would have an 
additional indirect effect on the local economy because they would stimulate the local economy 
by their spending on goods and services in other industries. This spending results in economic 
demand for a fraction of another indirect job. The review team obtained multipliers from the 
BEA for the economic impact area. The review team did not include currently employed 


November 2015 


5-51 


NUREG-2168 






Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


workers who would be employed at the PSEG Site because their direct and indirect effects are 
already included in the economic impact area baseline. 

In the economic impact area, BEA estimates that for every new utility industry worker, an 
additional 1.3032 workers in all industries is created (BEA 2013-TN2594). According to the 
analysis above, PSEG would hire 198 in-migrating workers and 22 unemployed workers. These 
220 direct jobs would result in 286 indirect jobs created (220 * 1.3032). For the purposes of this 
analysis, the review team expects these indirect workers to already reside in the economic 
impact area. The impacts to each county are estimated in Table 5-6. BEA also estimates the 
indirect earnings multiplier in the economic impact area. This multiplier was applied to the 
wages of new workers to determine the effect of direct earnings on the local economy. For 
every dollar of wages earned by new workers during operations, BEA estimates an additional 
$0.5276 in income would be added in the economic impact area. The $21 million annual 
compensation from the newly hired workers would lead to an estimated $11.08 million in annual 
indirect wages ($21 million * 0.5276) (BEA 2013-TN2594). 

Given the size of the economies and workforces in the economic impact area, the review team 
estimates the impact of operations at the PSEG Site would be minor, and positive. 


Table 5-6. Expected Distribution of Newly Created Workers in the Economic Impact Area 
During Operations 


County 

Percent of Newly 
Hired Workers 

In-migrating Plus 
Unemployed Workers 

Indirect Workers 
Created 

Total New 
Workers Hired 

New Castle 

20.6 

45 

59 

104 

Cumberland 

12.1 

27 

34 

61 

Gloucester 

17.7 

39 

51 

90 

Salem 

49.6 

109 

142 

251 


5.4.3.2 Taxes 

The tax structure for the economic impact area and region is discussed in Section 2.5.2.2. 
Primary tax revenues associated with operating activities at the PSEG Site would be from 
(1) State and local taxes on worker incomes, (2) State sales taxes on worker expenditures, 

(3) State sales taxes on the purchases of materials and supplies, (4) corporate taxes, and 
(5) local property taxes or payments in lieu of taxes based on the assessed value of the new 
PSEG plant during operation. 

State and Local Income Taxes 

Delaware and New Jersey would receive additional income tax revenue from the income tax on 
wages of new workers. Table 5-7 summarizes the estimated new income tax revenue that 
would be received by the two states during operations. The exact amount of income tax 
revenue would be determined on the basis of many factors such as rates, residency status, 
deductions, and other factors. 


NUREG-2168 


5-52 


November 2015 







Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Table 5-7. Estimated Increase in Income Tax Revenue Associated with Workforce 


State 

In-Migrating 

Workers 

Previously 

Unemployed 

Workers 

Estimated 
Annual Income 
at $95,869 per 
worker 

Income Tax 
Revenue 
from 
Workers 

Percent 
Increase in 
State Income 
Tax Revenue 

Delaware 

41 

5 

$4,409,974 

$244,753 (a) 

0.02 

New Jersey 

157 

17 

$16,681,206 

$1,047,413 (b) 

0.01 

Total 

198 

22 

$21,091,180 

$1,292,166 

- 

(a) DEDO 2012-TN2390; assumed $1,001 + 5.55% per worker. 

(b) NJ Treasury 2010-TN2338; assumed a tax rate of 6.279% or an average of income tax rates of 1.4% to 

8.97%. 


The majority of the operations workforce would already live in the region, would commute daily 
from the site, and would not be unemployed prior to operations. For the purposes of this 
analysis, the review team assumes that all the workers (unemployed and in-migrating) would 
live in the economic impact area. Approximately 220 workers would be newly employed and 
would then pay income taxes. Forty-six workers would pay income tax in Delaware, and 
174 would pay in New Jersey. They would provide $0.24 million and $1.05 million in additional 
income tax revenue to Delaware and New Jersey, respectively. This is an increase of 
approximately two-hundredths of 1 percent in Delaware and one-hundredth of 1 percent in New 
Jersey, compared to 2011 revenue. The indirect workers would also pay income taxes, but 
because the amount of indirect jobs created is similar to the newly employed workforce 
(286 versus 220 workers), their tax payments would be minimal compared with the tax base in 
New Jersey and Delaware. 

The addition of a new plant at the PSEG Site would have a noticeable and beneficial impact on 
New Jersey’s corporate income tax revenue. 

No localities within the economic impact area impose extra income taxes on workers. The 
review team believes the impact from extra income taxes on state revenue would be minimal 
and beneficial. 

State Sales Taxes on Worker Expenditures 

Workers would spend some of their income on goods and services that may be taxed. New 
Jersey imposes a 7 percent sales tax; however, Delaware does not impose a sales tax. No 
localities in the economic impact area impose an additional sales tax. Because Delaware 
imposes no sales tax and New Jersey’s 2011 revenue from sales taxes was over $11 billion, 
the review team expects a minimal, beneficial impact on state sales tax revenue from 
in-migrating and previously unemployed worker expenditures. 

State Sales Taxes on Materials and Supplies 

Section 5.4.3.1 discusses the review team’s estimates of PSEG expenditures in the economic 
impact area, region, and beyond during operations. These expenditures may be subject to 
sales taxes. New Jersey and Pennsylvania have sales taxes of 7 and 6 percent, respectively. 
Delaware does not impose sales taxes. Some localities in New Jersey and Pennsylvania 


November 2015 


5-53 


NUREG-2168 






Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


impose additional sales taxes (e.g., Philadelphia County imposes an extra 2 percent sales tax). 
However, none in the economic impact area impose extra sales taxes. 

During operations, the review team estimates over $339 million a year would be spent in New 
Jersey and over $162 million would be spent in Pennsylvania. These expenditures would 
bring in approximately $23.7 million and $9.7 million in sales tax revenue in New Jersey and 
Pennsylvania, respectively (Table 5-8). These would account for sales tax revenue increases 
of two-tenths of 1 percent and almost six-hundredths of 1 percent in New Jersey and 
Pennsylvania, respectively. Therefore, the review team believes that there would be a minimal 
and beneficial impact on sales tax revenues during operations. 


Table 5-8. Estimated Sales Tax Revenue on Purchases During Operations 


State 

Projected Annual 
Expenditures during 
Building (a) 

Sales Tax 
Rate (b) 

Projected 
Annual Sales 
Tax Revenue 

Percent 
Increase in 
State Sales Tax 
Revenue 

New Jersey 

$339,061,421 

7 percent 

$23,734,299 

0.20 

Pennsylvania 

$162,332,644 

6 percent 

$9,733,958 

0.06 

(a) Source: Table 5-5. 

(b) Source: Table 2-26. 


Corporate Income Taxes 

PSEG would also pay to New Jersey a corporate energy receipts tax of 9 percent of its annual 
revenue each year during operations. In 2011, New Jersey received $2.2 billion in corporate 
income tax revenue, and PSEG paid a total of $146 million for all of its business operations 
(PSEG 2011-TN3327). Assuming a dual-unit API 000 design (the largest in the ER’s PPE in 
terms of megawatts (electrical) and a 95 percent capacity factor, PSEG would pay the energy 
receipts tax on about 18,469 million kWh of electricity sold in the state of New Jersey. At an 
average retail rate of 14.68 cents per kilowatt-hour (DOE 2012-TN2524), PSEG would have 
estimated annual revenues of about $2.7 billion and would pay an energy receipts tax of about 
$244 million to the State of New Jersey; this would be equal to about 11 percent of the State’s 
2011 corporate income tax receipts. 

Assuming an Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) design (the smallest in the ER’s PPE in 
terms of megawatts (electrical) and a 95 percent capacity factor, PSEG would pay the energy 
receipts tax on about 10,914 million kWh of electricity sold in the state of New Jersey. At an 
average retail rate of 14.68 cents per kilowatt-hour, PSEG would have estimated annual 
revenues of about $1.6 billion and would pay an energy receipts tax of about $144 million to the 
State of New Jersey; this would be equal to about 6.5 percent of the State’s 2011 corporate 
income tax receipts. 

Property Taxes 

The review team assumes the 198 in-migrating operations workers would have to either 
purchase an existing home or build a new home in the economic impact area. For existing 
homes, the property tax effect would be zero, because the residence would already be on the 


NUREG-2168 


5-54 


November 2015 








Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


tax rolls for the county and township. For new homes, the review team believes only a limited 
number of in-migrating workers would prefer to build rather than buy an existing structure. 

Given the magnitude of the property tax base in each of the four counties in the economic 
impact area, the contribution of new real property to each area would result in a minor but 
beneficial impact. 

All of the real property and improvements related to a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site 
would be located in Salem County, New Jersey, primarily in the Lower Alloways Creek 
Township. However, the review team determined through interviews with the chief financial 
officer for Lower Alloways Creek Township that the township does not have a property tax or a 
school tax, but instead relies on the distribution of the energy receipts tax from the State 
government. The review team also determined that Salem County imposes a $1,207 per 
hundred dollars of assessed value property tax on all improvements and that PSEG pays the 
same rate (NRC 2012-TN2499). For an API000 design, the expected property tax revenue to 
Salem County would be about $120 million in the first year of operation, declining thereafter 
over the 40-year life of the plant.* 1 ) Over the 40 years of service, the API 000 design would 
generate a total of about $2.5 billion in property taxes to Salem County. For the ABWR design, 
the property tax revenue would be about $71 million in the first year of operation, with a 40-year 
total of about $1.4 billion in property taxes. Salem County’s 2013 budget shows an expected 
total revenue of $84 million (Salem County 2013-TN2576). Therefore, the proposed project 
would add be between about 140 percent (API000) and 82 percent (ABWR) to the current 
Salem County budget in the first year. Consequently, the review team determined that Salem 
County would experience a major and beneficial impact from the anticipated new property tax 
revenues, and the economic impact area would experience a minimal and beneficial impact. 

5 . 4.3.3 Summary of Economic Impacts to the Community 

Based on the information provided by PSEG and the review team’s independent evaluation and 
outreach, the review team concludes that the economic impacts would be SMALL and beneficial 
for the region and the economic impact area. The review team predicts SMALL and beneficial 
impacts to sales and excise tax and income tax receipts in the economic impact area and 
region. The review team also predicts MODERATE and beneficial impacts to the State of New 
Jersey from PSEG corporate tax payments and LARGE and beneficial impacts to Salem County 
from property tax payments. 

5.4.4 Infrastructure and Community Service Impacts 

This section provides the estimated impacts on infrastructure and community services, including 
transportation, recreation, housing, public services, and education. 


(1) Depreciation assumed at straight line (the most commonly used rate for utilities) for 40 years 

(assuming a units-of-production approach to service life) and no salvage value (Burns et al. 1982- 
TN2650). 


November 2015 


5-55 


NUREG-2168 



Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


5. 4.4 .7 Traffic 

Existing transportation routes would be affected by an increase in commuter traffic to and from 
the PSEG Site associated with the operations and outages workforce at the PSEG Site. The 
workforce for the new plant would primarily use the proposed causeway to avoid disruptions to 
the HCGS and SGS workforces (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The proposed causeway would 
separate all traffic to and from the new plant from traffic associated with the existing HCGS and 
SGS operations. The impacts from these two streams of traffic would interact when they 
converge around Salem City (PSEG 2013-TN2525). 

PSEG conducted a traffic impact analysis (TIA) to determine traffic impacts around the PSEG 
Site. The TIA analyzed deterioration of LOS on roads and intersections in Salem County. The 
TIA used the following assumptions: (1) the maximum anticipated construction workforce; 

(2) build-out year of 2021; (3) assumed selection of key routes although other, less-traveled 
routes are available; and (4) traffic load is based upon a combination of peak construction, 
outage workforce, maximum operations workforce present during building at the PSEG, and 
baseline background traffic (which incorporates current HCGS and SGS employees) at once 
(PSEG 2013-TN2525). The analysis in the TIA assumes a worst-case traffic scenario 
compared to the analysis presented by PSEG in its ER. Further discussion of the analysis and 
its assumptions are in Section 4.4.4.1. 

The TIA suggests certain mitigation measures to alleviate traffic impacts during building, which 
are discussed in Section 4.4.4.1. According to Table 4-13, some intersections would have 
unacceptable LOS values in the future no-build scenario. Even with conservative assumptions 
in the TIA, these intersections show improvement with the implementation of suggested 
mitigation measures. Because the operations workforce and the outage workforce are 
significantly smaller than the assumptions used in the TIA (approximately 1,200-1,300 vehicles 
per day compared to nearly 5,000 as discussed in Table 4-12), the review team expects impacts 
from traffic in the economic impact area to be minimal and localized. The greatest impacts 
would be during shift changes with an outage in process. 

5.4.4.2 Recreation 

Recreational resources in the economic impact area may be affected by operations activities at 
the PSEG Site. Impacts may include (1) increased user demand associated with the projected 
increase in population as a result of the in-migrating workforce and their families, (2) an 
impaired recreational experience associated with the views of the site and the potential cooling 
tower, and (3) access delays associated with increased traffic from extra traffic on local 
roadways. Increased user demand as a result of the in-migrating population may include 
increased competition for recreational vehicle spaces at campgrounds and at hotels/motels, 
which could be used for temporary housing for some of the workforce during outages or for 
recreational purposes by the new operations workforce. 

As discussed in Section 5.4.1, there would be some aesthetic impacts at recreational areas that 
have an unobstructed view of the PSEG Site. These areas are typically across the Delaware 
River in Delaware. There would be additional aesthetic impacts from PSEG’s EEP viewing 
platforms. Operations at the PSEG Site would add to the already industrial nature of the site. 


NUREG-2168 


5-56 


November 2015 




Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Also, people using recreational facilities in Salem County may experience traffic congestion on 
the roads during morning and afternoon commutes of the operations and outage workforces. 

However, because 60 percent of the operations workforce already lives within commuting 
distance of the PSEG Site, the review team does not expect the in-migrating portion of the 
operations workforce would place any stresses upon the capacity of recreational facilities near 
the site. The economic impact area and region’s parks and recreational facilities have sufficient 
capacity to accommodate in-migrating workers and their families and the review team expects 
no impact to trapping near the site (NRC 2012-TN2499). 

The review team expects the impacts to recreational activities in the vicinity to be minimal, 
except for a noticeable but not destabilizing aesthetic impact from operations at the site that 
would not be amenable to mitigation. 

5.4.4.3 Housing 

Section 2.5.2.5 discusses housing information for the economic impact area. According to 
Table 2-30, there are 30,578 vacant units in the economic impact area. As discussed in Section 
5.4.2, 198 workers and their families would move into the economic impact area. The rest of 
the operations workforce is expected to come from the region and commute daily to the site, 
therefore having no impact on the housing stock. 

The in-migrating workers and families may choose to buy available vacant housing or rent. 

Table 5-9 shows the estimated impact on housing availability for the in-migrating families. As 
shown in the table, there are minimal impacts on housing supply. 


Table 5-9. Estimated Housing Impacts in the Economic Impact Area 


County 

In-Migrating 

Families 

Vacant Units (a) 

Percent Change in 
Vacancy Rates 

New Castle 

41 

15,239 

0.27 

Cumberland 

24 

6,174 

0.39 

Gloucester 

35 

6,453 

0.54 

Salem 

98 

2,712 

3.61 

Total 

198 

30,578 

0.65 

(a) Source: Table 2-30. 


Operations workers are more likely to take advantage of the permanent housing stock or build 
new homes. Outage workers are more likely to take advantage of the temporary housing stock 
because they are expected to be at the PSEG Site for a relatively short period of time. In 
addition to the housing stock for owner-occupied housing and rental units, there is also sufficient 
stock of temporary housing in the economic impact area if workers decide to stay in hotels, 
motels, or campgrounds. Salem County officials also indicate that many outage workers who 
come from outside the region rent rooms in single-family homes in localities near the site 
(NRC 2012-TN2499). 

Given the large supply of vacant housing relative to the in-migrating operations workforce during 
operations and the availability of short-term accommodations for outage workers, the review 


November 2015 


5-57 


NUREG-2168 






Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


team expects sufficient housing to be available for workers relocating to the area and minimal 
impacts on the housing supply or prices in the local area. 

Operations at the PSEG Site could affect housing values in the vicinity. In a review of previous 
studies on the effect of seven nuclear power facilities, including four nuclear power plants, on 
property values in surrounding communities, Bezdek and Wendling (Bezdek and Wendling 
2006-TN2748) concluded that assessed valuations and median housing prices have tended to 
increase at rates above national and State averages. Clark et al. (1997-TN3000) similarly found 
that housing prices in the immediate vicinity of two nuclear power plants in California were not 
affected by any negative views of the facilities. These findings differ from studies that looked at 
undesirable facilities, largely related to hazardous waste sites and landfills, but also including 
several studies on power facilities (Farber 1998-TN2857) in which property values were 
negatively affected in the short-term, but these effects were moderated over time. Bezdek and 
Wendling (2006-TN2748) attributed the increase in housing prices to benefits provided to the 
community in terms of employment and tax revenues, with surplus tax revenues encouraging 
other private development in the area. Given the findings from the studies discussed above, the 
review team determines that the impact on housing value from operations at the PSEG Site 
would be minor. 

Based on the information provided by PSEG, interviews with local officials, and its own 
independent review, the review team expects there would be minimal impacts in the economic 
impact area and the region on the price and availability of housing from operations at the PSEG 
Site. 

5.4.4.4 Public Services 

This section discusses the impacts on existing water supply, wastewater treatment, police, fire, 
and health care services in the economic impact area. 

Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment Services 

Approximately 60 percent of the project operations workforce would be local workers who 
currently reside in the region. The majority of these workers would commute from their homes 
to the project site and would not relocate. Therefore, the majority of workers are currently 
served by the water supply and wastewater treatment facilities within the communities where 
they reside. 

During operations, the review team expects 198 workers (530 people, including families) to 
move into the economic impact area. These relocating workers would increase the demand on 
the water supply and wastewater treatment services within the communities where they reside. 

The review team calculated the increase in demand for residential water based on the increase 
in people and using the New Jersey per capita demand of 100 gallons per day (gpd) 

(Barnett 2010-TN2484). Table 5-10 shows the impact of the increased population on the 
excess capacity within each county of the economic impact area. As shown in Table 5-10, each 
county has less than a 1 percent increase in demand on current excess capacity. 


NUREG-2168 


5-58 


November 2015 



Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Table 5-10. Estimated Water Supply Impacts in the Economic Impact Area 


County 

Current Excess 
Capacity (Mgd) 

Increase in 
Population 

Estimated 
Increase in Water 
Demand (Mgd) (a) 

Percent Increase 
in Demand on 
Excess Capacity 

New Castle 

*1,000 (t}) 

110 

0.011 

0.001 

Cumberland 

3.995 (c) 

64 

0.006 

0.150 

Gloucester 

24.733 (c) 

94 

0.009 

0.000 

Salem 

2.646 (c) 

262 

0.026 

0.982 


(a) Increase in population multiplied by 100 gpd. 

(b) New Castle County 2012 Comprehensive Plan Update (NCCDE 2012-TN2326). 

(c) Source: Table 2-31. 


Given the small increase in demand that would result from the in-migrating workers and their 
families compared to existing supply, the review team has determined that impacts on water 
supply in the economic impact area would be minimal, and mitigation would not be warranted. 

The review team calculated the increase in demand for residential wastewater treatment based 
on the increase in population and by using the New Jersey per capita demand for wastewater 
treatment of 75 gpd (SJBC 2012-TN2485). Table 5-11 shows the impact of the increased 
population on the excess capacity within each county's wastewater treatment facilities within the 
economic impact area. As shown in Table 5-11, no county in the economic impact area would 
have greater than a 1 percent increase in demand on excess capacity. 

Given the small increase in demand that would result from the in-migrating workers and their 
families compared with existing supply, the review team has determined that impacts on 
wastewater treatment in the economic impact area would be minimal, and mitigation would not 
be warranted. 


Table 5-11. Estimated Wastewater Supply Impacts in the Economic Impact Area 


County 

Current Excess 
Capacity (Mgd) (a) 

Increase in 
Population 

Estimated Increase 
in Wastewater 
Demand (Mgd) (b ' 

Percent Increase in 
Demand on Excess 
Capacity 

New Castle 

32.30 

110 

0.008 

0.025 

Cumberland 

8.84 

64 

0.005 

0.054 

Gloucester 

6.13 

94 

0.007 

0.115 

Salem 

2.05 

262 

0.020 

0.959 


(a) Source: Table 2-32. 

(b) Increase in population multiplied by 75 gpd. 


PS7EG indicates that a freshwater aquifer that currently supplies HCGS and SGS would also 
supply the new plant with potable and sanitary water, fire protection water, and water for other 
miscellaneous uses. PSEG indicates that it would need between 302.400 and 1.37 million gpd 
on the site (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The review team believes this impact would be negligible 
and would be subject to permit requirements. Further analysis of groundwater withdrawal 
during operation is in Section 5.2. PSEG also has an onsite wastewater treatment facility for 
HCGS and SGS, but it was sized only to meet the demand of HCGS and SGS. PSEG would 
install a new sewage treatment facility or expand the existing one to meet needs for the 


November 2015 


5-59 


NUREG-2168 










Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


construction and operations workforce at a new nuclear power plant, so there would be no 
offsite treatment of wastewater from the new plant (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Therefore, there 
would be no impact on public wastewater facilities from the PSEG Site. 

The review team has concluded from the information provided by PSEG, interviews with local 
planners and officials, and its own independent evaluation that operations at the PSEG Site 
would have minimal impacts on the local water supply and on wastewater treatment facilities, 
and no mitigation would be warranted. 

Police, Fire, and Health Care Services 

The operations workforce at the PSEG Site would increase the demand on police, fire, and 
health care services within the communities where workers reside and at the PSEG Site. 

Approximately 60 percent of the project workforce would be local workers who currently reside 
in the region. The majority of these workers would commute from their homes to the project site 
and would not relocate. Therefore, the majority of workers are currently served by the police, 
fire, and health care services within the communities where they reside. 

During operations, the review team expects 198 workers and their families to move into the 
economic impact area. This constitutes a total of 530 people moving into the economic impact 
area during operations. These relocating workers would increase the demand on the police, 
fire, and health care services within the communities where they reside. 

No county in the economic impact area would have a population increase greater than one-half 
of 1 percent. In discussion with local officials of the localities closest to the site—Lower 
Alloways Creek Township, Elsinboro Township, and Salem County— the review team found no 
need to increase police, fire, or health care services because of in-migrating operations workers. 
The review team, after discussion with local officials, found that with the minimal increases in 
population, there should be only a negligible effect on the performance of police, fire, and health 
care services in the economic impact area. 

Locally, Elsinboro Township receives police services from a contract with Lower Alloways Creek 
Township, and its fire and emergency medical services (EMS) are volunteer-based. Lower 
Alloways Creek Township and Salem City have their own police force and volunteer fire/EMS 
forces. Salem County also has a sheriffs office and is patrolled by State police. All hospitals in 
the area are under capacity (NRC 2012-TN2499). Because of their proximity to the site, these 
three jurisdictions in Salem County would receive the most impacts from operations and outage 
worker injuries or accidents on the roads leading to the site and at the site. After discussions 
with local officials and its own independent analysis, the review team expects a minimal impact 
on these services from operations at the PSEG Site, and no mitigation would be warranted. 

5. 4.4.5 Education 

The operations workforce at the PSEG Site would increase the demand for educational services 
within the communities where workers reside. Approximately 60 percent of the project 
workforce would be local workers who currently reside in the region. The majority of these 
workers would commute from their homes to the project site and would not relocate. Therefore, 


NUREG-2168 


5-60 


November 2015 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


the majority of workers are currently served by the educational services within the communities 
in which they reside. 

As shown in Table 5-12, during operations there would be an estimated increase of 34 students 
in the economic impact area. This is a small increase compared to the existing rolls in the 
economic impact area (over 160,000 students, as shown in Table 2-34). No county in the 
economic impact area would have a noticeable increase in the number of students per teacher. 
The only increase in student-to-teacher ratios would be in Salem County, where the review 
team estimated an increase of one-hundredth of one student per teacher. Some schools may 
receive higher numbers of children during operations because of amenities and the school 
choice programs available in New Jersey and Delaware. Because of these estimates, the 
public choice programs, and discussions with local officials, the review team foresees minimal 
impacts on local school districts. 

Based on the review team’s independent analysis and discussions with local officials, the review 
finds that the impacts to schools in the economic impact area would be minimal, and no 
mitigation would be warranted. 


Table 5-12. Estimated Number of School-Aged Children Associated with In-Migrating 
Workforce Associated with Operations at the PSEG Site 


County 

Estimated 
Increase in 
Population 

Percent of 
Population 
Ages 

5-18 Yh a) 

Estimated 
Increase in 
School-Age 
Children 

Student/Teacher 
Ratio Existing 
Conditions (b)(c) 

Student/Teacher 
Ratio During 
Operations (c) 

New Castle 

41 

16.5 

7 

15.24 

15.24 

Cumberland 

24 

17.1 

4 

12.02 

12.02 

Gloucester 

35 

18.0 

6 

12.93 

12.93 

Salem 

98 

17.2 

17 

11.24 

11.25 

Total 

198 

17.1 

34 

13.58 

13.58 

(a) U S. Census Bureau (USCB 2008-TN2344). 

(b) Source: Table 2-34. 

(c) Public school estimates only. 


5.4.4.6 Summary of Community Service and Infrastructure Impacts 

Based on the information provided by PSEG and the review team’s independent evaluation and 
outreach, the review team concludes that impacts to all infrastructure and community services 
would be SMALL for the region and the economic impact area, with the exception of 
recreational impacts near the PSEG Site. The review team expects MODERATE adverse 
impacts to local recreational resources because of impacts on viewsheds from the increased 
industrial character of the PSEG Site. 

5.4.5 Summary of Socioeconomics 

The review team has assessed the activities related to operating a new nuclear power plant at 
the PSEG Site and the potential socioeconomic impacts in the region and economic impact 
area. Physical impacts on workers and the general public include those on noise levels, air 


November 2015 


5-61 


NUREG-2168 







Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


quality, existing buildings, roads, and aesthetics. The review team concludes most physical 
impacts from operations at the PSEG Site would be SMALL, with the exception of a 
MODERATE impact to aesthetics that could not be reduced through mitigation. 

On the basis of information supplied by PSEG and the review team interviews conducted with 
public officials, the review team concludes that impacts from operations at the PSEG Site on the 
demographics of the region and economic impact area would be SMALL. Economic impacts 
throughout the region and economic impact area would be SMALL and beneficial. Tax impacts 
would be SMALL and beneficial throughout the region and economic impact area, with the 
exceptions of MODERATE and beneficial corporate income payments to New Jersey and 
LARGE and beneficial property tax payments to Salem County. 

Infrastructure and community services impacts span issues associated with traffic, recreation, 
housing, public services, and education. Impacts from operations at the PSEG Site on traffic, 
housing, public services, and education would be SMALL. Recreational impacts would be 
MODERATE and adverse because of impacts on viewsheds from the increased industrial 
character of the PSEG Site, which would not be amenable to mitigation. 

5.5 Environmental Justice 

The review team evaluated whether minority or low-income populations would experience 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects from the operation 
of a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site. To perform this assessment, the review team 
(1) identified (through U.S. Census Bureau and American Community Survey demographic 
data, PSEG’s ER, and on-the-ground assessments) minority and low-income populations of 
interest; (2) identified all potentially significant pathways for human health, environmental, 
physical, and socioeconomic effects on those identified populations of interest; and 
(3) determined whether or not the characteristics of the pathway or special circumstances of the 
minority or low-income populations would result in a disproportionately high and adverse impact. 

To perform this assessment, the review team followed the methodology described in 
Section 2.6.1. In the context of operations activities at the PSEG Site, the review team 
considered the questions outlined in Section 2.6.1. For all three health-related questions, the 
review team determined that the level of environmental emissions projected is well below the 
protection levels established by NRC and EPA regulations and would not impose a 
disproportionate and adverse effect on minority or low-income populations. 

5.5.1 Health Impacts 

Section 5.8 assesses the nonradiological health effects for operations workers and the local 
population from fugitive dust, noise, occupational injuries, and transport of materials and 
personnel. In Section 5.8, the review team concludes that nonradiological health impacts would 
be SMALL. The review team’s investigation and outreach did not identify any unique 
characteristics or practices among minority or low-income populations that might result in 
disproportionately high and adverse nonradiological health effects. 


NUREG-2168 


5-62 


November 2015 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Section 5.9 of this EIS assesses the radiological doses to the operations workforce and the local 
population and concludes that the doses would be within NRC and EPA dose standards. 

Section 5.9 concludes that radiological health impacts on the operations workforce at the PSEG 
Site would be SMALL. 

During operations at a new plant, PSEG would be required to maintain a Radiological 
Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP). The REMP program assesses the impact of the 
plant on the environment, and samples of environmental media are collected and analyzed for 
radioactivity. A plant effect would be indicated if the radioactive material detected in a sample 
was significantly larger than the background level. The results of the 2009 REMP sampling and 
previous REMP reports at HCGS and SGS indicate that operations at the PSEG Site would not 
result in any offsite impacts. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s Bureau 
of Nuclear Engineering performs an independent Environmental Surveillance and Monitoring 
Program (ESMP) in the environment around HCGS and SGS. The ESMP monitors pathways 
for entry of radioactivity into the environment to identify potential exposures to the population 
from routine and accidental releases of radioactive effluent and to provide a summary and 
interpretation of this information to members of the public and government agencies. The 2008 
report indicated that, overall, there were no received measurable exposures of radiation above 
normal background to residents living in the area around HCGS and SGS (NRC 2011-TN3131). 
Per regulatory requirements, the review team expects similar results for a new plant at the 
PSEG Site. Based on this information, the review team concludes that there would be no 
disproportionately high and adverse impact on low-income or minority populations. 

5.5.2 Physical and Environmental Impacts 

For the physical and environmental considerations described in Section 2.6.1, the review team 
determined through literature searches and consultations that (1) the impacts on the natural or 
physical environment would not significantly or adversely affect a particular group; (2) no 
minority or low-income population would experience an adverse impact that would appreciably 
exceed or be likely to appreciably exceed those of the general population; and (3) the 
environmental effects would not occur in groups affected by cumulative or multiple adverse 
exposure from environmental hazards. 

The review team determined that the physical and environmental impacts from operations at the 
PSEG Site would attenuate rapidly with distance, intervening foliage, and terrain. There are 
four primary exposure media in the environment: soil, water, air, and noise. The following 
subsections discuss each of these pathways in greater detail. 

5.5.2 .7 Soil 

The review team did not identify any pathway by which operations-related impacts on soils at 
the PSEG Site would impose a disproportionately high and adverse impact on any population of 
interest. The review team considers the risk of soil salinization from cooling towers to be low. 
Therefore, the review team determines there is no soil-related pathway by which minority or 
low-income populations of interest could receive a disproportionately high and adverse impact. 


November 2015 


5-63 


NUREG-2168 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


5.5.2.2 Water 

Operations at the PSEG Site could affect the water quality in the Delaware River and water use 
of the Delaware River. Water-quality impacts result from increased stormwater runoff from the 
impervious surfaces of the PSEG Site and thermal and chemical constituents in the cooling 
water discharges. As discussed in Sections 5.2 and 5.3.2, operations at the PSEG Site would 
generate a small thermal plume from cooling water discharge into the Delaware River. Solutes 
in the effluent discharged would be diluted by the large water volume of the Delaware River. In 
addition, discharges would be required to comply with limits imposed by permits. Consequently, 
the increase in temperature and concentration of these chemicals and the thermal plume 
impacts in the Delaware River would be negligible. Therefore, the review team determines 
there is no water-related pathway by which minority or low-income populations of interest could 
receive a disproportionately high and adverse impact. 

5.5.2.3 Air 

Air emissions sources associated with operations at the PSEG Site would include standby 
diesel generators and/or gas turbines, auxiliary boilers, diesel-driven pumps, and other ancillary 
equipment. These emissions sources would be small, occur infrequently or mostly during the 
winter months, and be permitted for use by a Clean Air Act (CAA, 42 USC 7401 et seq. - 
TN1141) Permit. Modifications to the SGS and HCGS Title V Operating Permit under the CAA 
from the NJDEP would be required for a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site, addressing 
emissions and compliance with State and Federal regulations (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Cooling 
towers would emit small amounts of particulate matter as drift. However, emissions from these 
sources would be expected to have only a minimal impact on ambient air quality in offsite 
communities. Therefore, the review team determines there is no air-related pathway by which 
minority or low-income populations of interest could receive a disproportionately high and 
adverse impact. 

5.5.2.4 Noise 

Primary noise sources associated with operations at the PSEG Site would be cooling towers 
and transformers. As noted in Section 5.8.2, noise from the transformers and cooling towers 
would be buffered by the distance of the plant from residences such that ambient sound level 
should not increase appreciably. Noise levels are anticipated to be less than 65 dBA at the 
nearest noise-sensitive receptor. Therefore, the review team determines there is no 
noise-related pathway by which minority or low-income populations of interest could receive a 
disproportionately high and adverse impact. 

5.5. 2.5 Summary of Physical and Environmental Impacts 

The review team’s investigation and outreach did not identify any unique characteristics or 
practices among minority or low-income populations that might result in physical or 
environmental impacts that would be different from those on the general population. 

As discussed in Section 2.6, most of the census block groups classified as minority or 
low-income are located across the Delaware River in New Castle County. The closest block 
groups to the PSEG Site are about 8 mi north of the site in the City of Salem. The census block 


NUREG-2168 


5-64 


November 2015 



Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


groups would not be affected by any physical or environmental impacts because of their 
distance from the site. 

Based on information provided by PSEG and the review team’s independent review, the review 
team found no pathways from soil, water, air, and noise that would lead to disproportionately 
high and adverse impacts on minority or low-income populations. 

5.5.3 Socioeconomic Impacts 

Socioeconomic impacts (discussed in Section 5.4) were reviewed to evaluate whether there 
would be any operational activities that could have a disproportionately high and adverse impact 
on minority or low-income populations. Except for adverse effects on recreational resources, all 
adverse socioeconomic impacts associated with operations at the PSEG Site are expected to 
be SMALL for the general public. The review team found that there could be adverse 
MODERATE impacts on recreational resources; however, these impacts are not expected to 
disproportionately affect the nearby low-income and minority populations. 

5.5.4 Subsistence and Special Conditions 

NRC’s environmental justice methodology includes an assessment of populations with unique 
characteristics, such as minority communities exceptionally dependent on subsistence 
resources or identifiable in compact locations, such as Native American settlements or 
high-density concentrations of minority populations. 

5.5. 4 .7 Subsistence 

Access to the PSEG Site is restricted, so there are no plant-gathering, hunting, or fishing 
activities at the site. PSEG and the review team independently interviewed community leaders 
in Salem County and New Castle County and found that no such practices were identified in the 
vicinity of the PSEG Site. There is no documented subsistence fishing in the Delaware River, 
and all hunting, plant-gathering, and fishing near the PSEG Site is done for recreational 
purposes (Section 2.6.3). 

From the information provided by PSEG, interviews with local officials, and the review team’s 
independent evaluation, the review team concludes that there would be no operations-related 
disproportionately high and adverse impacts on subsistence activities on minority or low-income 
populations. 

5.5. 4.2 High-Density Communities 

As discussed in Section 2.6.3, there are no high-density communities in Elsinboro and Lower 
Alloways Creek Townships. There are two public housing projects in Penns Grove and three in 
Salem City. From its own independent evaluation and interaction with local officials, the review 
team does not predict any impacts to the communities in Penns Grove because of its distance 
from the site and because no pathways exist for adverse impacts. 


November 2015 


5-65 


NUREG-2168 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


5.5.5 Migrant Labor 

As discussed in Section 2.6.3, the main migrant populations closest to the site are the HCGS 
and SGS outage workforces. Farm workers in the economic impact area are located closer to 
or in Gloucester and Cumberland Counties and not near the PSEG Site. Therefore, from the 
information provided by PSEG, interviews with local officials, and the review team’s independent 
evaluation, the review team concludes that there would be no disproportionately high and 
adverse impacts on migrant laborers. 

5.5.6 Summary of Environmental Justice Impacts 

The review team evaluated the proposed operations activities at the PSEG Site on 
environmental justice populations. The review team did not identify any potential environmental 
pathways by which the identified minority or low-income populations in the 50-mi region and 
economic impact area would likely experience disproportionately high and adverse human 
health, environmental, physical, or socioeconomic effects as a result of operations activities. 

5.6 Historic and Cultural Resources 

Operation of a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site has the potential to affect historic and 
cultural resources. Impact levels from operation are dependent on the resources present. 
Section 2.7 describes the historic and cultural resources found in the vicinity of the project area. 
Section 4.6 describes the effects from building activities on historic and cultural resources in the 
vicinity of the PSEG Site. Both the NRC and the USACE are responsible for considering the 
effects of the project on historic and cultural resources. The NRC is responsible for any effects 
to historic and cultural resources that could occur on Artificial Island and that would result from 
the visual intrusion of a new nuclear power plant. The USACE is responsible for effects from 
any required dredging and the construction of a new causeway linking Artificial Island to Money 
Island. No impacts to historic and cultural resources are expected from any dredging activities; 
however, the USACE has yet to make its effects determination on this aspect of the project 
(NJDEP 2013-TN2742). Consultation is ongoing for the Money Island (i.e., causeway) and 
dredging area aspects of the project. In most cases, any impacts to historic and cultural 
resources would occur during building when most ground-disturbing activities, which pose the 
main threat to these resources, would take place. Operation of a new nuclear power plant 
would not be expected to further affect these resources. 

Operation of a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site could affect the viewshed of historic 
architectural resources in the vicinity of the site that are listed in or eligible for listing in the 
National Register of Historic Places. As discussed in Section 2.7, there are 29 architectural 
resources of concern in line of sight within 4.9 mi of the project area (MACTEC 2009-TN2543; 
AKRF 2012-TN2876; AKRF 2015-TN4287). It is anticipated that operation of a new nuclear 
power plant that includes two NDCTs (if selected) would affect the Abel and Mary Nicholson 
House National Historic Landmark (NHL), and the properties at 349 Fort Elfborg-Hancock 
Bridge Road and 116 Mason Point Road. Even though the proposed project is over 4 mi from 
the NHL and other historic properties, and the visibility of the NDCTs is dependent on climatic 
conditions, which could obscure them (see Figure 2-30 and 2-31 in Section 2-7), the visual 
impact would remain noticeable. In addition to the proposed NDCTs, vapor plumes from the 


NUREG-2168 


5-66 


November 2015 




Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


towers would be visible during plant operations. The introduction of additional plumes would, 
however, be consistent with the current setting, which includes the existing SGS and HCGS 
facilities and therefore would not contribute to the visual adverse effect. Further discussion of 
the visual effects from the new plumes is provided in Section 5.4.1.6. The Delaware State 
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred that no historic properties in Delaware would be 
visually affected by the project (DDHCA 2013-TN2639). In December 2014, the New Jersey 
SHPO issued a new opinion that the ESP could result in an adverse visual effect to the Abel 
and Mary Nicholson House NHL (NJDEP 2014-TN4288). 

No traditional cultural properties of significance to Native American tribes have been identified in 
the vicinity of the project area. See Section 2.7.3 for additional information about consultation 
with Native American tribes. 

As discussed in Section 4.6, impacts to archaeological resources are not expected to occur as a 
result of NRC authorized activities. In the event that significant historic and cultural resources 
were encountered during operations, PSEG maintains procedure EN-AA-602-0006 for 
considering cultural resources during operations (PSEG 2012-TN2557). Operations are 
expected to have an indirect visual adverse effect on the Abel and Mary Nicholson House NHL 
(127 Fort Elfsborg-Hancock Bridge Road, Elsinboro Township), and the historic properties at 
349 Fort Elfsborg-Hancock Bridge Road and at 116 Mason Point Road (NRC 2015-TN4291), 
which are all in New Jersey, if NDCTs are selected. No historic properties would be affected by 
operations in Delaware (DDHCA 2013-TN2639). For the purposes of the review team’s NEPA 
analysis, based on (1) no known significant resources on Artificial Island, (2) the review team’s 
cultural resource analysis, (3) PSEG’s procedure for inadvertent discovery of archaeological 
resources, and (4) consultation with the New Jersey and Delaware SHPOs, the review team 
concludes the potential indirect visual adverse effect could result from operations in New 
Jersey. Because the impact is indirect and can be mitigated the overall NEPA impacts on 
historic and cultural resources are expected to be SMALL to MODERATE. This range results 
from the fact that the visual effect on historic properties is variable and influenced by climatic 
conditions but would remain noticeable if NDCTs were built. If mechanical draft cooling towers 
were selected as the cooling system, there would be no impact to historic properties. Section 
106 consultation for the NRC’s portion of the proposed project was completed by the execution 
of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on October 14, 2015 (NRC 2015-TN4377). A copy of 
the final MOA is provided within Appendix F. . 

5.7 Meteorology and Air Quality Impacts 

The primary impacts of operating a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site on local 
meteorology and air quality would be from CWS releases to the environment of heat and 
moisture from the primary cooling system, operation of auxiliary equipment (e.g., generators 
and auxiliary boilers), and mobile emissions (e.g., worker vehicles). Section 5.7.1 discusses 
potential air-quality impacts from nonradioactive effluent releases from the PSEG Site. The 
potential impacts of releases from operating the cooling system are discussed in Section 5.7.2. 
Section 5.7.3 discusses the potential air-quality impacts associated with transmission lines 
during plant operation. 


November 2015 


5-67 


NUREG-2168 





Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


5.7.1 Air-Quality Impacts 

Section 2.9 describes the meteorological characteristics and air quality of the PSEG Site. 

Based on PSEG’s plant parameter envelope (PPE), sources of air emissions would include 
stationary combustion sources (auxiliary boilers, four emergency diesel generators, two regular 
diesel generators, and/or six gas turbines), cooling towers (one or two natural draft, mechanical 
draft, or fan-assisted natural draft wet cooling towers and smaller mechanical draft cooling 
towers for SWS cooling) (PSEG 2015-TN4280), and mobile sources (worker vehicles, onsite 
heavy equipment and support vehicles, and delivery of materials and disposal of wastes). 
Stationary combustion sources would operate only for limited periods, often for periodic 
maintenance testing. 

5.7. 7.7 Criteria Pollutants 

The principal air emission sources associated with a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site 
would be cooling towers, auxiliary boilers for heating and startup, engine-driven emergency 
equipment, and emergency power supply system diesel generators and/or gas turbines. Based 
on the PPE bounding assumptions (Appendix I), the new plant would have six backup 
generators (four emergency diesel generators and two normal diesel generators) and/or six gas 
turbines as part of the emergency power supply system. The anticipated annual auxiliary boiler 
and diesel generator/gas turbine air emissions, which include nitrogen oxides (NO x ), carbon 
monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SO x ), hydrocarbons in the form of volatile organic compounds 
(VOCs), and particulate matter, are provided in Table 5-13. Operation of a new nuclear power 
plant would increase gaseous and particulate emissions to the air by a small amount, primarily 
from equipment associated with auxiliary systems and the cooling towers. The primary sources 
of emissions from auxiliary systems would be the auxiliary boilers, standby power units such as 
diesel generators or gas turbines, and engine-driven emergency equipment. The auxiliary 
boilers would be used for heating buildings associated with the new plant, primarily during the 
winter months, and for process steam during site startups. The diesel generators/gas turbines 
and engine-driven emergency equipment would be used intermittently and for brief durations 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). ' 

Low-sulfur fuels would be used for all equipment, minimizing gaseous and particulate emissions 
during the periods when the equipment operates. The cooling towers would be the primary 
source of particulate emissions (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Table 5-13 presents PSEG’s estimated annual nonradiological emissions associated with 
operating a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site. As discussed in Section 2.9.2, Salem 
County is in a nonattainment area for the 8-hour ozone (O 3 ) National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQSs, 40 CFR 81.331 [TN255]), so the General Conformity Rule (40 CFR Part 
93, Subpart B [TN2495]) applies. The primary precursors to O3 are NO x and VOCs. New 
Jersey is located inside the Northeast Ozone Transport Region. For ozone and its precursors in 
states within the Northeast Ozone Transport Region, such as New Jersey, the applicable 40 
CFR 93.153(b)(1) de minimis rates (40 CFR Part 93, Subpart B, [TN2495]) are 100 tons per 
year (tpy) for NO x and 50 tpy for VOCs. The estimated annual NO x emissions in Table 5-13 are 
57.3 tpy, well below the 100 tpy de minimis rate. The estimated annual VOC emissions are 202 
tpy, significantly larger than the 40 CFR 93.153(b)(1) de minimis rate (40 CFR 93, Subpart B, 


NUREG-2168 


5-68 


November 2015 








Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


[TN2495]). However, the CAA regulations at 40 CFR 93.153(d)(1) state that, notwithstanding 
the other requirements of 40 CFR Part 93 (TN2495), a conformity determination is not required 
for a Federal action (or portion thereof) that includes major or minor new or modified stationary 
sources that require a permit under the New Source Review (NSR) program or the Prevention 
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. Therefore, the NRC has determined that it is not 
required to consider the NO x and VOC emissions from the operation of PSEG in the applicability 
analysis and conformity determination. At the COL stage, the NRC staff will need to 
demonstrate conformity with the applicable state implementation plan according to 40 CFR 
93.150 to comply with the General Conformity Rule (40 CFR Part 93, Subpart B [TN2495]). 
Because the ESP does not authorize the activities that would lead to these emissions, the 
General Conformity Rule is not addressed at this time. 

Air emission sources associated with a new nuclear power plant would be managed in 
accordance with Federal, State, and local air-quality control laws and regulations. A new plant at 
the PSEG Site would comply with all regulatory requirements of the CAA. including requirements 
of the NJDEP Division of Air Quality, thereby minimizing any impacts on state and regional air 
quality. Modifications to the SGS and HCGS Title V Operating Permit under the CAA from the 
NJDEP would be required for a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site, addressing emissions 
and compliance with State and Federal regulations (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 


Table 5-13. Annual Estimated Emissions from Cooling Towers, Auxiliary Boilers, Diesel 
Generators, and Gas Turbines at the PSEG Site 


Emission Effluent 

Cooling 

Towers 

(lb/yr) (a > 

Auxiliary 

Boilers 

(lb/yr) (b) 

Diesel 

Generators 

(lb/yr) (c) 

Gas 

Turbines 

(lb/yr) (d > 

Total Emissions 

(Ib/yr) (ton/yr) 

Nitrogen Oxides 

NA (e) 

76,088 

28,968 

9,540 

114,596 

57.3 

Carbon Monoxide 

NA 

6,996 

4,600 

824 

12,420 

6.2 

Sulfur Oxides 

NA 

460,000 

5,010 

547 

465,557 

232.8 

Volatile Organic Compounds (f) 

NA 

400,800 

3,070 

43 

403,913 

202.0 

Particulate Matter (PMio) 

122,000 

138,000 

1,620 

130 

261,750 

130.9 


(a) Based on 8,760 hours of operation at 13.9 Ib/hr (14.63 g/s). 

(b) Based on 120 days of operation; PPE values are based on 30 d/yr operation; to obtain emissions for 120 days, 
the value in PPE is multiplied by 4. 

(c) Based on 4 hours of operation per month. 

(d) Based on operation 1 hour per month and one additional 24-hour period every 24 months for a total of six gas 
turbine generators. Higher emissions between uncontrolled and water-steam injection are presented. 

(e) NA = not applicable. 

(f) As total hydrocarbon. 

Source: PSEG 2015-TN4280; PSEG 2015-TN4283. 


The EPA revised the 8-hour ozone NAAQS on March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436-TN3337). The 
primary 8-hour ozone standard was lowered from 0.080 ppm to 0.075 ppm. The secondary 
standard was also strengthened to make it identical to the revised primary standard. New 
Jersey submitted recommendations for designating nonattainment areas for the 2008 revised 
ozone standard to EPA on April 1, 2009. On January 6, 2010, EPA proposed to strengthen the 
8-hour ozone NAAQS set in March 2008. EPA is proposing to strengthen the 8-hour "primary” 
ozone standard, designed to protect public health, to a level within the range of 0.060 to 
0.070 ppm. 


November 2015 


5-69 


NUREG-2168 











Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


New or modified sources of air pollution must undergo an NSR before construction and obtain a 
Title V operating permit if they emit or have the potential to emit (PTE) more than the threshold 
values in NJAC Title 7, Chapter 27 (NJAC 7:127-TN3290) for criteria air pollutants. Stationary 
equipment such as diesel generators and auxiliary boilers would be required to comply with the 
requirements of the “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source 
Categories” given in 40 CFR Part 63 (TN1403). These regulations specify emission limits and, 
for nonemergency diesels, performance tests, limitations on fuel sulfur content, and operating 
limitations. In addition, depending on when the engines are built and installed, there may be 
additional requirements under the “Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression 
Ignition Internal Combustion Engines” (40 CFR 60, Subpart llll, [TNI020]). These Federal 
requirements would be administered by the State and included in the Title V operating permit. 
Given the small size and infrequent operation of combustion equipment, impacts on offsite air 
quality are expected to be minimal. 

Additional operations-related traffic would also result in vehicular air emissions. Of particular 
concern is NO x because it contributes to ozone formation, and Salem County is in an 8-hour 
ozone nonattainment area. Nominal localized increases in emissions would occur due to the 
increased numbers of cars, trucks, and delivery vehicles that would travel to and from the ESP 
site. Most of the increased traffic would be associated with employees driving to and from work. 
Once the workers are at the site, the volume of traffic and its associated emissions is expected 
to decrease. The workforce would also be staggered in shifts, which would further reduce the 
amount of traffic during peak traffic times (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Therefore, impacts to local 
and regional air quality from operations-related traffic would be minimal. 

Fugitive dust is expected to be generated during operation. However, dust suppression 
methods could minimize impacts from fugitive dust. These include watering exposed areas, 
reseeding, or stabilizing areas after construction activities (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

The closest mandatory Class I Federal area where visibility is an important value is the 
Brigantine Wilderness Area at the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge north of 
Brigantine, New Jersey (40 CFR 81.420 [TN255]), approximately 60 miles east of the PSEG 
Site. Considering the distance to the Class I area, which is not downwind of prevailing winds at 
the site, and the minor air emissions from the PSEG Site, there is little likelihood that activities at 
the PSEG Site could adversely affect air quality and air-quality-related values (e.g., visibility or 
acid deposition) in this Class I area. 

Based on the information provided by PSEG and the review team’s independent evaluation, the 
review team concludes that the air-quality impacts of criteria pollutants would not be noticeable, 
and additional mitigation would not be warranted, given PSEG’s commitment to manage and 
mitigate emissions in accordance with applicable regulations. 

5.7. 1.2 Greenhouse Gases 

Operating a nuclear power plant involves the emission of some greenhouse gases (GHGs), 
primarily carbon dioxide (C0 2 ). The review team has estimated that the total GHG footprint for 
operating a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site for 40 years is on the order of 634,000 
metric tons (MT) of C0 2 equivalent (C0 2 e, an emission rate of about 15,850 MT C0 2 e annually, 


NUREG-2168 


5-70 


November 2015 



Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


averaged over the period of operation). This amounts to about 0.011 percent of the total 
projected GHG emissions estimate in New Jersey of 143,400,000 MT of gross C02e in 2010 
(NJDEP 2008-TN2776). This also equates to about 0.0002 percent of the total United States 
annual emission rate of 6.7 billion MT C0 2 e in 2011 (EPA 2013-TN2815). The value of 
634,000 MT C0 2 e includes the emissions from a nuclear power plant operating (362,000 MT 
C0 2 e) and the associated emissions from the operations workforce (272,000 MT C0 2 e). These 
estimates are based on GHG footprint estimates in Appendix K. 

The EPA promulgated the PSD requirements and the Title V GHG Tailoring Rule on June 3, 
2010 (75 FR 31514-TN1404). This rule states that, among other items, new and existing 
sources not already subject to a Title V permit, or that have a PTE at least 100,000 tpy (or 
75,000 tpy for modifications at existing facilities) C0 2 e, will become subject to the PSD and Title 
V requirements effective July 1,2011. The rule also states that sources with a PTE below 
50,000 tpy C0 2 e will not be subject to PSD or Title V permitting before April 30, 2016. EPA may 
decide not to require permits for sources with GHG emissions less than 50,000 tpy. Based on 
the review team’s estimate of 15,850 MT C0 2 e emitted annually from operation of a new 
nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site, PSEG would fit into the category of smaller sources that 
are subject to permitting after April 30, 2016, or may be exempt from permitting (EPA 2014- 
TN2497). 

Based on its assessment of the plant operations’ GHG footprint when compared with annual 
GHG emissions for New Jersey and the United States, the review team concludes that the 
atmospheric impacts of GHGs from plant operations would not be noticeable, and additional 
mitigation would not be warranted. 

5.7.2 Cooling System Impacts 

The proposed cooling systems for the CWS at the PSEG Site would be one of three different 
closed-loop evaporative (wet) designs: mechanical draft, natural draft, or fan-assisted natural 
draft (PSEG 2015-TN4280). For this impact analysis, the first two designs are evaluated, and 
the impacts of the last design are considered to be bounded by the impacts of the first two 
designs. The mechanical draft design consists of two LMDCTs, each with a tower length, width, 
and height of 817 ft, 100 ft, and 46 ft, respectively. Each LMDCT has 34 cells with a cell 
diameter of 31.6 ft. The natural draft design consists of two NDCTs, each with a tower height 
and diameter of 590 and 242 ft, respectively. In addition, the new nuclear power plant would 
use four smaller essential SWS/UHS cooling towers; the heat dissipated by these towers would 
be an order of magnitude less than that dissipated by cooling towers for the CWS. Accordingly, 
impacts from the SWS/UHS cooling towers are not considered further in the analysis because 
they have a considerably smaller impact than the CWS cooling towers. 

The proposed cooling towers would remove excess heat by evaporating water. Upon exiting 
the tower, water vapor would mix with the surrounding air, and this process would generally lead 
to condensation and formation of a visible plume, which would have aesthetic impacts. Other 
meteorological and atmospheric impacts include ground-level fogging/icing, plume shadowing, 
drift deposition from dissolved salts and chemicals found in the cooling water, and ground-level 
temperature and humidity increases. In addition, plumes from the cooling towers could interact 
cumulatively with emissions from other sources and the existing HCGS cooling tower. 


November 2015 


5-71 


NUREG-2168 



Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


The Electric Power Research Institute’s SACTI prediction computer code was used to estimate 
potential seasonal and annual impacts associated with operating the proposed cooling towers 
(EPRI 1987-TN3335). Site-specific, tower-specific, and circulating-water-specific engineering 
data were used as input to the SACTI model. Three years (2006-2008) of onsite 
meteorological data combined with cloud data (such as cloud cover and ceiling heights) from 
nearby New Castle County Airport in Wilmington, Delaware, and mixing height data from the 
Dulles International Airport in Sterling, Virginia, which is the closest representative upper-air 
station, were used in the analysis (PSEG 2015-TN4280; PSEG 2014-TN3334). The source of 
cooling water for these towers is brackish water from the Delaware River. The TDS value of 
12,900 mg/L (or 12,900 ppm) is conservatively assumed for the analysis, although the highest 
measured mean TDS value in the river is 6,280 mg/L (or 6,280 ppm). As cooling water 
continues to evaporate from the towers or be lost via drift, the concentration of minerals in the 
water increases, which can lead to scaling and corrosive conditions. To control TDS levels, the 
portion of the circulating water should be blown down. Because of the use of brackish water, a 
lower cycle of concentration (1.5), defined as the ratio of TDS concentration in the circulating 
water compared to the raw makeup water, is assumed. Both the mechanical and natural draft 
designs would be equipped with high-efficiency drift eliminators, which significantly reduce 
particulate matter (PM) emissions (especially larger PM) and, thereby, salt deposition around 
the site. Detailed model input data to SACTI for LMDCTs and NDCTs are presented in ER 
Tables 5.3-5 and 5.3-6 (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The SACTI modeling results for visible plumes, 
ground-level fogging/icing, plume shadowing, and salt deposition are presented, which are 
made by the applicant and confirmed by the staffs independent analysis. 

Both ground-level temperature and humidity would increase in the vicinity of the warm and 
humid cooling tower plumes. However, any increases in ground-level temperature and humidity 
would be localized and short-lived as the plume, reaching a considerable height, disperses and 
mixes with the far larger volume of surrounding air, and thus ground-level temperature and 
humidity increases are not considered further. 

5. 7.2 .7 Visible Plumes 

Results from the SACTI analysis, as reported by PSEG (PSEG 2015-TN4280; PSEG 2014- 
TN3334), indicate that the largest frequency of visible plume occurrence is on the site. For 
comparison, the nearest plant boundary is 1,100 ft from the center of the tower area. On an 
annual basis, SACTI predicts that the plume lengths from the LMDCTs would be less than 
1,969 ft for about half of the time and that the most frequent occurrences would be 9.5 percent 
of the time (or 831 hr/yr) at 328 ft southeast of the LMDCTs. The highest probability of a visible 
plume near the nearest plant boundary would be about 5.7 percent of the time (or 499 hr/yr) at 
984 ft north of the LMDCTs. By season, the most frequent occurrence is predicted during the 
winter: 14.0 percent of the time (or 302 hr/yr) at 328 ft southeast of the LMDCT and 11.9 
percent of the time (or 257 hr/yr) at 984 ft southeast of the LMDCTs. The visible plume 
frequency would be reduced with increasing distance from the towers. The visible plume would 
extend to a distance of 1,640 ft with an average of 278 hr/yr and to a distance of 3,281 ft with an 
average of 179 hr/yr. In general, the visible plumes from the NDCTs could be seen more 
frequently than those from the LMDCT at downwind locations. On an annual basis, SACTI 
predicts that the plume lengths from the NDCTs would be less than 3,281 ft about half of the 
time and that the most frequent occurrences would be about 9.5 percent of the time (or 


NUREG-2168 


5-72 


November 2015 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


831 hr/yr) up to 984 ft southeast of the NDCTs. Of these occurrences, the most frequent 
occurrence is predicted during the winter, 14.0 percent of the time (or 302 hr/yr) at up to 1,640 ft 
southeast of the NDCTs. The visible plume would extend to a distance of 1,640 ft with an 
average of 499 hr/yr and to a distance of 3,281 ft with an average of 282 hr/yr. 

Considering the physical tower heights, the visible plume could reach a height of at least 
112 and 820 ft above ground level for the LMDCTs and NDCTs, respectively (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280; PSEG 2014-TN3334). On an annual basis, the median plume height for the LMDCTs 
would be about 702 ft, while that for the NDCTs would be about 1,574 ft. Due to the greater 
release height of the plumes, the NDCT plumes would achieve a greater height above ground 
level than the LMDCT plumes. 

The visible plume frequencies discussed above include nighttime hours when plumes may 
not be perceived. Thus, cooling tower plumes would be seen less frequently than the 
aforementioned values, considering daytime hours only. The frequency of occurrence of long 
cooling tower plumes from either LMDCTs or NDCTs in a given direction is predicted to be low. 
Given the limited elevations and extent of the visible plumes from both designs, any associated 
impacts would be minor and would not warrant mitigation. 

5.7. 2.2 Ground Fogging and Icing 

Ground-level fogging occurs when a visible plume from a cooling tower contacts the ground. In 
general, fogging is predicted to occur more frequently in non-summer months. A large majority 
of fogging is predicted to occur within the PSEG Site boundary. On an annual basis, fogging 
could extend up to 3,609 ft east-southeast of the LMDCTs, and maximum fogging duration 
would be 7 hours at 1,312 ft northwest of the LMDCTs (PSEG 2015-TN4280; PSEG 2014- 
TN3334). On a seasonal basis, maximum fogging durations and distances from the LMDCTs 
are 2.7 hours at 656 ft northwest in winter, 5.5 hours at 656 ft west-southwest in spring, and 3.0 
hours between 1,312 and 1,640 ft northwest in fall. No fogging is predicted to occur during the 
summer. As discussed in Section 2.9.1, the prevailing wind direction is from the northwest, but 
fogging occurs more frequently to the west, which suggests that meteorological conditions 
conducive to fogging are associated with winds from the east and southeast (i.e., the Atlantic 
Ocean and Delaware Bay). As a consequence, fogging events would be infrequent, and most 
fogging events would be limited to the PSEG Site, which would not significantly affect roadway 
conditions in the vicinity of the site or commercial shipping traffic on the Delaware River. Icing 
may occur when the cooling tower plume comes in contact with the ground (i.e., fogging occurs) 
at below-freezing temperatures. The SACTI model predicts that no icing events would be 
anticipated at any location in any season, which suggests that fogging events would not occur 
during freezing conditions. 

Based on studies of actual NDCTs, the SACTI model assumes that the occurrence of fogging 
(and icing) is an insignificant event because of the greater plume height of the NDCTs and 
therefore does not estimate their occurrence. 

Meteorological conditions favoring natural fogs also favor cooling tower fogging. Natural heavy 
fogging in the PSEG Site area occurs about 26 days per year on average (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280). Any plume-induced event would thus be infrequent and likely to occur concurrently 
with a natural fog. Considering that fogging events occur infrequently and most frequently on 


November 2015 


5-73 


NUREG-2168 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


the site, and that no icing impacts are predicted, potential impacts of LMDCT-induced 
fogging/icing are anticipated to be negligible and would not warrant mitigation. 

5.7. 2.3 Plume Shado wing 

Plume shadowing from cooling tower plumes is predicted by the SACTI model by calculating the 
average number of hours the visible plume would shadow the ground. Most of the plume 
shadowing would occur within 656 ft of the towers for 2,830 hr/yr for LMDCTs and 1,658 hr/yr 
for NDCTs (PSEG 2015-TN4280; PSEG 2014-TN3334). Plume shadowing frequency 
decreases rapidly with increasing distances. Plume shadowing frequency decreases to 1,098 
hr/yr at 1,312 and 345 hr/yr at 3,281 ft for the LMDCTs. Similarly, it decreases to 1,117 hr/yr at 
1,312 and 412 hr/yr at 3,281 ft for the NDCTs. Beyond 9,843 ft, the average plume shadowing 
frequency would be less than 145 hours per year, about 3.3 percent of the 4,380 daylight hours, 
which would be insignificant in terms of effects on agricultural production. Given the limited 
agricultural activities around the PSEG Site, the impacts of plume shadowing are expected to be 
minor and would not require mitigation. 

5.7. 2.4 Salt Deposition 

The NDCT would use high-efficiency drift eliminators to minimize the loss of cooling water from 
the tower via drift, but some droplets still would escape from the tower along with the moving 
airstream and would be deposited on the ground. For LMDCTs, the SACTI model predicted 
maximum deposition rates of 0.89 (kg/ha/mo annually at 2,297 ft east of the towers 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280; PSEG 2014-TN3334). The maximum seasonal impact would occur 
during the winter, with 1.31 kg/ha/mo at 2,297 ft east of the towers, while the minimum seasonal 
impact would occur during the summer, with 0.56 kg/ha/mo between 1,969 and 2,297 ft east of 
the towers. These maximum impacts are below the maximum levels considered acceptable in 
NUREG-1555 (NRC 2000-TN614) (i.e., deposition of salt drift at rates of 1 to 2 kg/ha/mo, which 
generally is not damaging to plants). The predicted deposition rates are well below the level for 
which deposition rates could cause leaf damage in many species (i.e., approaching or 
exceeding 10 kg/ha/mo in any month during the growing season). In contrast, potential impacts 
from the NDCTs would be much lower, and maximum concentrations would occur farther than 
those from LMDCTs because of the taller plume release height, which is the sum of physical 
tower height and buoyant plume rise caused by a greater volume of hot and humid effluents. 

For the NDCTs, the annual maximum deposition rate of 0.023 kg/ha/mo is predicted to occur 
between 4,265 and 7,546 ft north of the towers, with a maximum seasonal deposition of 
0.034 kg/ha/mo in winter and a minimum seasonal deposition of 0.024 kg/ha/mo in summer. 

The predicted deposition rates from the NDCTs are well below the levels of concern. Based on 
2001 LULC data from the USGS, 1 percent of the land within 3 mi of the PSEG Site is 
designated as medium- and high-intensity developed land, while surface waters and wetlands 
comprise about 90 percent of the land (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Most of the plant communities 
within the salt drift zone that would be exposed to drift from the cooling towers consist of salt 
marsh or brackish marsh ecosystems dominated by medium- to high-salinity tolerant species. 
Thus, the impacts of salt deposition from the cooling towers on nearby vegetation are expected 
to be minor, and no further mitigation would be warranted. 


NUREG-2168 


5-74 


November 2015 



Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


5. 7.2.5 Interaction with Other Pollutant Sources 

The existing HOGS NDCT is located more than 0.6 mi south-southeast of the planned location 
of the cooling towers for a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site. The plumes from the 
HCGS tower and the PSEG Site towers would usually travel in parallel, rather than in 
intersecting directions. The potential cumulative interaction of existing and new cooling tower 
plumes is expected to be insignificant given the large separation distance and the fact that the 
plumes would travel along nonintersecting paths most of the time. 

Existing combustion sources such as diesel generators (HCGS) and boilers (SGS) currently 
operate infrequently and mostly during the winter months Combustion sources that would be 
associated with a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site would operate similarly for only 
limited periods. With the exception of particulates, these combustion sources emit criteria air 
pollutants (such as NO X) sulfur dioxide [SO 2 ], and CO) that are different from those produced by 
cooling towers (i.e., small amounts of PM as drift). Interaction among pollutants emitted from 
these sources and the cooling tower plumes would be for only limited periods and would not 
have a significant impact on air quality. Based on the above considerations and the assumption 
that cooling towers associated with the PSEG Site would be similar to existing cooling towers 
used at other nuclear sites, the review team concludes that the cooling tower impacts on air 
quality would be minimal, and additional mitigation of air-quality impacts would not be 
warranted. 

Conclusion. As discussed above, the SACTI model predicts that potential impacts of plumes 
from the cooling towers at the PSEG Site would be limited primarily to the immediate onsite 
area and just beyond the site boundary. The cooling towers proposed for the PSEG Site would 
be equipped with high-efficiency drift eliminators, which are intended to significantly reduce PM 
emissions (especially larger PM) and salt deposition. The area around the PSEG Site is 
relatively sparsely populated and less sensitive to the potential impacts from cooling tower 
operations (e.g., plume shadowing or salt deposition, considering limited agricultural activities). 
On the basis of the analysis presented by the applicant in its ER and the staffs independent 
evaluation of that analysis, the staff concludes that atmospheric impacts of cooling tower 
operation at the PSEG Site would be SMALL and that no further mitigation would be warranted. 

5.7.3 Transmission Line Impacts 

Impacts of existing transmission lines on air quality are addressed in the Generic Environmental 
Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants , Revision 1 (NRC 2013- 
TN2654). Small amounts of ozone and even smaller amounts of NO x are produced by 
transmission lines. The production of these gases was found to be insignificant for 745-kV 
transmission lines (the largest lines in operation) and fora prototype 1,200-kV transmission line. 
In addition, it was determined that potential mitigation measures, such as burying transmission 
lines, would be very costly and would not be warranted. 

There are currently two 500-kV transmission lines leading to HCGS, two 500-kV transmission 
lines leading to SGS, and 500-kV tie lines between the two switchyards. PJM Interconnection, 
LLC, (PJM) identified the potential need for an additional 500-kV transmission line to resolve 
grid stability issues. The existing transmission line sizes and the potential new offsite 500-kV 


November 2015 


5-75 


NUREG-2168 



Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


transmission line are well within the range of transmission lines evaluated in NUREG-1437, 
Revision 1 (NRC 2013-TN2654). The review team therefore concludes that air-quality impacts 
from the transmission lines would not be noticeable and mitigation would not be warranted. 

5.7.4 Summary 

The review team evaluated potential impacts on air quality associated with criteria pollutants 
and GHG emissions from operating a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site. The review 
team also evaluated potential impacts of cooling system emissions. In each case, the review 
team determined that the impacts would be minimal. On this basis, the review team concludes 
that the impacts of operating a new nuclear power plant on air quality from criteria pollutant 
emissions, GHG emissions, the cooling system, and transmission lines would be SMALL and 
that no further mitigation would be warranted. 

5.8 Nonradiological Health Impacts 

This section addresses the nonradiological human health impacts of operating a new nuclear 
power plant at the PSEG Site. Health impacts on the public from operation of the cooling 
system, noise generated by operations, electromagnetic fields, and transporting operations are 
discussed. Health impacts from the same sources for workers at a new nuclear power plant are 
also evaluated. Health impacts from radiological sources during operations are discussed in 
Section 5.9. 

5.8.1 Etiological Agents 

Operation of a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site would result in a thermal discharge to 
the Delaware River (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Such discharges have the potential to increase the 
growth of etiological agents, both in the CWS and the river. Etiological agents include enteric 
pathogens (such as Salmonella spp.), Pseudomonas aeruginosa , thermophilic fungi, bacteria 
(such as Legionella spp.), and free-living amoeba (such as Naegleria fowled and 
Acanthamoeba spp.). These microorganisms could result in potentially serious human health 
concerns, particularly at high exposure levels. Available data assembled by the U.S. Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for the years 2000 to 2010 were reviewed for 
outbreaks of legionellosis, salmonellosis, or shigellosis within the vicinity of the PSEG Site and 
in New Jersey and Delaware (CDC 2002-TN2444; CDC 2002-TN2438; CDC 2003-TN2437; 

CDC 2004-TN2435; CDC 2004-TN2436; CDC 2005-TN2442; CDC 2006-TN2445; CDC 2006- 
TN2441; CDC 2007-TN2440; CDC 2008-TN2439; CDC 2008-TN557; CDC 2013-TN2377; CDC 
2010-TN2447; CDC 2011-TN2446; CDC 2011-TN2448; CDC 2011-TN558; CDC 2012- 
TN2378). Outbreaks that occurred in Delaware and New Jersey were within the range of 
national trends in terms of cases per populations of 100,000 and in terms of total cases per 
year; the outbreaks were associated with pools, spas, or lakes. Additionally, the Salem County 
Department of Health and the New Jersey and Delaware State health agencies have not 
recorded any major waterborne disease outbreaks in the Delaware River in the proximity of the 
PSEG Site (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

The CDC Council of State Territorial Epidemiologists Naegleria Work Group, after reviewing the 
data from different sources, identified 121 fatal cases of primary amebic meningoencephalitis 


NUREG-2168 


5-76 


November 2015 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


(PAM, caused by Naegleria fowleri) in the United States from 1937 to 2007; most cases 
occurred in southern states during the months of July and September (CDC 2013-TN2375; Neil 
and Berkelman 2008-TN2735). No outbreaks of Legionnaires’ disease, PAM, or any other 
waterborne diseases associated with HCGS or SGS operations have been reported in the past. 
The standard practices for operating cooling towers include adding biocides to the water to limit 
growth of microorganisms inside the towers and providing appropriate protective equipment for 
workers who enter the cooling towers for maintenance operations. PSEG would use biocides to 
reduce the levels of microbial populations in the cooling tower, condenser equipment, and 
facilities at a new nuclear power plant. Chlorination controls microbial growth in the piping and 
condenser to prevent biofouling and microbiological deposits. PSEG policies and procedures 
regarding industrial hygiene procedures for protection of workers from thermophilic 
microorganisms in a new nuclear power plant would follow the existing PSEG maintenance 
procedures for SGS and HCGS (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Sodium hypochlorite solution also is 
used to control biofouling, and all blowdown waters are treated to comply with NJPDES permit 
requirements before discharge to the Delaware River (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

The existing Delaware River water temperature conditions in the vicinity of the PSEG Site and 
the proposed discharge location are affected by the presence of discharges from the existing 
SGS and to a lesser extent HCGS (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Water temperature monitoring data 
and thermal plume analysis indicate that the SGS HDA envelops the HCGS HDA and extends 
northward along the shoreline well beyond the location of the proposed PSEG Site discharge, 
which would extend only about 100 ft into the Delaware River (PSEG 2015-TN4280). It is 
assumed that a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site would use two cooling towers (with a 
mechanical draft, natural draft, or fan-assisted natural draft wet cooling tower) and would have a 
closed-loop cooling system to reduce the temperature of water discharged to the Delaware 
River. The thermal plume modeling of this discharge indicates the PSEG Site thermal plume 
would be contained within 600 ft of the shoreline. Consequently, the plume from a new nuclear 
power plant would be contained within the SGS thermal plume, and the combined excess 
temperatures from a new nuclear power plant, HCGS, and SGS would be less than the 
maximum temperature in the existing SGS thermal plume (PSEG 2015-TN4280). NJDEP has 
issued a discharge permit for SGS and determined that the SGS thermal plume does not impact 
the balanced indigenous community (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Furthermore, existing DRBC 
regulatory standards for thermal discharges to the Delaware River state that temperature 
increases above ambient outside the permitted heat dissipation area may not exceed 2.2°C 
(4°F) from September to May or 0.8°C (1,5°F) from June through August. Overall temperatures 
may not exceed 30°C (86°F) (72 FR 46931-TN2736). The temperature of the river water would 
be below the optimal temperatures for thermophilic bacteria to grow and reproduce. 

Study of the PSEG Site indicated the following: 

• a historical low incidence of diseases from etiological agents in Delaware and New Jersey 
associated with exposure to the Delaware River in proximity to the PSEG Site, 

• a relatively small volume of water discharged from the closed-cycle cooling system of a new 
nuclear power plant, 

• rapid mixing that occurs within the Delaware River, and 

• the small size of the heat dissipation area. 


November 2015 


5-77 


NUREG-2168 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


For these reasons, the review team concludes the impacts on human health from the 
microorganisms, including thermophiles, in the Delaware River and the cooling towers of a new 
nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site would be minimal and that mitigation would not be 
warranted. 

5.8.2 Noise 

In NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996-TN288), the NRC staff discusses the environmental impacts of 
noise at existing nuclear power plants. Common sources of noise from site operation include 
cooling towers, transformers, and switchyards, with intermittent contributions from loud 
speakers and auxiliary equipment such as diesel generators. These noise sources are 
discussed in this section. 

The existing HCGS and SGS units use water from the Delaware River to remove waste heat. 
HCGS has a closed-loop cooling system with an NDCT, and SGS has a once-through cooling 
water system with condenser cooling. A new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site would have 
a cooling water system with mechanical draft, natural draft, or fan-assisted NDCTs with a 
closed-loop cooling system. Cooling water would be pumped from the Delaware River by an 
intake pipeline, and blowdown from the cooling towers would be returned to the river through a 
discharge pipeline after the blowdown was mixed with other site operation wastewater and 
passed through a wastewater treatment facility (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

The main source of continuous noise is anticipated to be the two cooling towers associated with 
a new nuclear power plant. Two fan-assisted NDCTs are used as the bounding condition for 
this assessment because NDCTs are taller than MDCTs (590 ft versus approximately 46 ft, 
respectively) (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The fan-assisted NDCT is a continuous noise source 
during site operation with an estimated noise emission of 60 dBA at 1,000 ft. The nearest 
PSEG Site boundary is west of the cooling towers, 1,100 ft from the center of the proposed 
cooling tower area; the next closest site boundary is 1,165 ft to the east. PSEG also has 
identified heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning systems; vents; transformers and electrical 
equipment; transmission lines; water pumps; material-handling equipment; motors; and public 
address systems as additional noise sources from operations at the PSEG Site. Noise 
attributed to operations-related truck and vehicular traffic would be intermittent, primarily during 
shift changes. 

Applicable protective noise levels for the PSEG Site are contained in NJAC 7:29, which includes 
regulatory limits on continuous noise levels at the residential property line from industrial, 
commercial, public service, or community service facilities. For continuous noise sources, the 
protective level is 65 dBA during the day and 50 dBA during the night at the residential property 
line (NJAC 7:29-TN2732). The similar Delaware limits (Part VII, Title 7, Chapter 71 of the 
Delaware Code [7 Del Admin. C. § 1149-TN3001]) provide for a protective level of 65 dBA 
during the day and 55 dBA during the night for residential receptors. 

According to NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996-TN288), noise levels below 60 to 65 dBA as the 
day-night average noise level (DNL or Ldn) are considered to be of small significance. More 
recently, impacts of noise were considered in NUREG-0586, Supplement 1 (NRC 2002- 
TN665). The criterion for assessing the level of significance was not expressed in terms of 


NUREG-2168 


5-78 


November 2015 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


sound levels but instead was based on the effect of noise on human activities and on 
threatened and endangered species. The criterion in NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, is stated as 
follows. 


The noise impacts are considered detectable if sound levels are sufficiently high 
to disrupt normal human activities on a regular basis. The noise impacts are 
considered destabilizing if sound levels are sufficiently high that the affected area 
is essentially unsuitable for normal human activities, or if the behavior or breeding 
of a threatened and endangered species is affected. (NRC 2002-TN665) 

PSEG conducted a baseline noise survey in 2009 for the PSEG Site and determined that noise 
from sources at HCGS and SGS attenuate to levels that meet New Jersey and Delaware State 
standards of 65 dBA for daytime at the boundary of the PSEG property (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 
Based on the natural attenuation of noise levels over distance, noise levels for the fan-assisted 
NDCTs for the PSEG Site are estimated at a distance of 10,000 ft. A fan-assisted NDCT with a 
noise emission level of 60 dBA at 1,000 ft has a noise level of 41 dBA at 10,000 ft. PSEG 
states that the closest residences are 14,700 ft west and 15,900 ft east of the PSEG Site 
boundaries (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Thus, noise from onsite sources would attenuate to levels 
that would meet the New Jersey nighttime noise level standards (50 dBA) at the property 
boundary of the nearest residence. 

The review team concludes the impact of noise from operating a new nuclear power plant at the 
PSEG Site would be minimal (depending on the reactor and cooling tower design as well as 
equipment choices) and that mitigation would not be warranted. 

5.8.3 Acute Effects of Electromagnetic Fields 

Electric shock resulting from either direct access to energized conductors or induced charges in 
metallic structures is an example of an acute effect from EMFs associated with transmission 
lines (NRC 1999-TN289). Such acute effects are controlled and minimized by conformance 
with National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) criteria and the Organization of PJM States, Inc. 
(OPSI), which organizes the statutory regulatory agencies in the 13 states and Washington, 

D.C., where PJM operates transmission systems. The PSEG ER (PSEG 2015-TN4280) states 
that if PJM determines that new transmission lines are needed for additional capacity from the 
PSEG Site or to support the regional grid, the new lines would meet or exceed design 
requirements set forth by NESC and meet the Lower Delaware Valley 500 kV Transmission 
Design Criteria. Also, lines would meet USACE requirements for clearance over flood levels 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). PSEG and PJM both have committed to design new transmission lines 
to meet present NESC criteria, and the NRC staff assumes that if new transmission lines are 
needed, such lines would be constructed to meet NESC criteria. For these reasons, the review 
team concludes the impact to the public from acute effects of EMFs would be minimal, and 
additional mitigation would not be warranted. 

5.8.4 Chronic Effects of Electromagnetic Fields 

Power transmission lines in the United States operate at 60 Hz. The EMFs resulting from 60-Hz 
power transmission lines fall under the category of nonionizing radiation and are considered to 


November 2015 


5-79 


NUREG-2168 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


be extremely low frequency (ELF) EMFs. Research on the potential for chronic effects from 
60-Hz EMFs from energized transmission lines was reviewed by the NRC and is addressed in 
NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996-TN288). At the time of that review, research results were not 
conclusive. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) directs related 
research through the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). An NIEHS report (NIEHS 1999-TN78) 
contains the following statement. 

The NIEHS concludes that ELF-EMF (extremely low frequency-electromagnetic 
field) exposure cannot be recognized as entirely safe because of weak scientific 
evidence that exposure may pose a leukemia hazard. In our opinion, this finding 
is insufficient to warrant aggressive regulatory concern. However, because 
virtually everyone in the United States uses electricity and therefore is routinely 
exposed to ELF-EMF, passive regulatory action is warranted such as a continued 
emphasis on educating both the public and the regulated community on means 
aimed at reducing exposures. The NIEHS does not believe that other cancers or 
non-cancer health outcomes provide sufficient evidence of a risk to currently 
warrant concern. 

The staff reviewed available scientific literature on chronic effects to human health from ELF- 
EMFs published since the NIEHS report and found that several other organizations reached the 
same conclusions (HPA 2006-TN1273; WHO 2007-TN1272). Additional work under the 
auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO) updated the assessments of a number of 
scientific groups that reflected the potential for transmission line EMFs to cause adverse health 
impacts in humans. The monograph summarized the potential for ELF-EMFs to cause diseases 
such as cancers in children and adults 1 depression' suicide' reproductive dysfunction' 
developmental disorders' immunological modifications' and neurological disease. The results of 
the review by WHO (WHO 2007-TN1272) found the extent of scientific evidence linking these 
diseases to EMF exposure is not conclusive. 

These conclusions by four national and international groups are in agreement. The current 
scientific evidence regarding the chronic effect of ELF-EMFs does not conclusively link ELF- 
EMFs to adverse health impacts. The staff will continue to follow developments in this area. 

5.8.5 Occupational Health 

In general, occupational health risks for the PSEG Site are expected to be dominated by 
occupational injuries to workers engaged in activities such as maintenance, testing, and site 
modifications. Overexertions, minor bodily injuries, and contact with an object or equipment, as 
well as falls, slips, and trips, are the most commonly encountered injuries associated with lost 
time (BLS 2014-TN4222). In 2009, annual incidence rates (the number of injuries and illnesses 
per 100 full-time workers) for electrical power generation, transmission, and distribution workers 
for New Jersey and the United States are 1.4 and 3.0, respectively (BLS 2010-TN2427; 

BLS 2010-TN2428). Historically, actual injury and fatality rates at nuclear reactor facilities have 
been lower than the average U.S. industrial rates. In 2009, the incidence rate of nonfatal 
injuries and illnesses for the nuclear electric power generation industry was 0.6 total recordable 
cases per 100 full-time-equivalent employees, with 0.1 cases per 100 full-time-equivalent 
employees involving days away from work, job transfer, or restriction (BLS 2010-TN2427). 


NUREG-2168 


5-80 


November 2015 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Based on the assumption of a total operations workforce of 600 (PSEG 2015-TN4280), these 
rates suggest that operation of a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site would be 
associated with approximately four occupational injuries and illnesses per year. However, these 
are gross estimates and do not take into account risks workers would face if they were 
employed somewhere other than at a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site. 

In addition, PSEG monitors current operations at HCGS and SGS for OSHA recordable and 
nonrecordable injury rates per PSEG Nuclear procedure SA-AA-123, Injury and Illness 
Reporting and Recordkeeping (PSEG 2012-TN2403). This procedure ensures accurate and 
consistent injury recording to maintain compliance with OSHA regulations and PSEG policy. As 
of June 2012, the HCGS OSHA recordable rate is 0.61, which represents a rolling average of 
injuries per 200,000 person-hours worked. The OSHA recordable rate for SGS as of the end of 
June 2012 is 0.11 per 200,000 person-hours worked. The 2011 HCGS OSHA recordable rate 
was 0.34, while the SGS OSHA recordable rate for 2011 was 0.40. These OSHA recordable 
rates are applicable to PSEG employees only. 

Occupational injury and fatality risks are reduced by strict adherence to NRC and OSHA safety 
standards (29 CFR Part 1910-TN654), practices, and procedures. Appropriate State and local 
statutes also must be considered when the occupational hazards and health risks associated 
with a new nuclear power plant’s operation are being assessed. The staff assumes adherence 
to NRC, OSHA, and State safety standards, practices, and procedures during operation of a 
new plant at the PSEG Site. Additional occupational health impacts may result from exposure 
to hazards such as noise, toxic or oxygen-replacing gases, etiological agents in the condenser 
bays, and caustic agents. PSEG reports it maintains a health and safety program to protect 
workers from industrial safety risks at the operating units and would implement the program for 
a new plant at the PSEG Site (PSEG 2015-TN4280; PSEG 2012-TN2403). Health impacts on 
workers from nonradiological emissions, noise, and EMFs would be monitored and controlled in 
accordance with the applicable OSHA regulations and would be minimal. 

5.8.6 Impacts of Transporting Operations Personnel to the PSEG Site 

The general approach used to estimate nonradiological impacts from transport of operations 
and refueling personnel to and from the PSEG Site was the same as that used to calculate 
impacts from transport of the construction workforce. The parameter assumptions needed to 
calculate nonradiological impacts for transportation of operational workforce are discussed 
below. 

• The average number of workers needed for operation of a new nuclear power plant at the 
PSEG Site was given as 600 in the ER (PSEG 2015-TN4280), which also stated that a peak 
refueling staff of 1,000 temporary workers was required every 24 months. 

• It is assumed workers travel 50 mi roundtrip to the PSEG Site for 250 days per year. It is 
assumed that no sharing of personnel with HCGS and SGS operations staff would occur. 

• To develop representative commuter traffic impacts, rates of New Jersey traffic accidents, 
injuries, and fatalities were obtained from the New Jersey Department of Transportation 
(NJDOT 2012) and the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (USDOT 2012) for the years 2006 to 2010. 


November 2015 


5-81 


NUREG-2168 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


The estimated impacts of transporting operations and outage workers to and from a new 
nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site are shown in Table 5-14. The total number of traffic 
fatalities during operations, including both operations and outage personnel, are estimated to 
average less than 0.15 annually. The estimated average number of injuries would 0.18 annually 
from traffic accidents among both the permanent operations and outage workforces. The 
addition of operational personnel at the PSEG Site is expected to result in a minimal, if not 
imperceptible, increase relative to the current traffic injury risk in the area surrounding the 
PSEG Site. 


Table 5-14. Nonradiological Impacts of Transporting Operations Personnel to and from 
the PSEG Site 



Accidents per Year 

Injuries per Year 

Fatalities per Year 

Type of Workers 

(average) 

(average) 

(average) 

Permanent 

0.27 

0.07 

0.06 

Permanent and Refueling 

0.73 

0.18 

0.15 


5.8.7 Summary of Nonradiological Health Impacts 

The review team evaluated health impacts on the public and workers from operation of a new 
nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site, including cooling systems, noise generated by unit 
operations, acute and chronic impacts of EMFs from transmission lines, and transportation of 
operations and outage workers to and from the site. Health risks to workers are expected to be 
dominated by occupational injuries at rates below the average U.S. industrial rates. Health 
impacts on the public and workers from operations at a new nuclear power plant, including 
exposure to etiologic microorganisms, noise generated by plant operations, and acute impacts 
of EMFs, would be minimal. Based on the information provided by PSEG and the review team’s 
independent review, the review team concludes the potential nonradiological health impacts 
resulting from the operation of a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site would be SMALL. 
Current scientific evidence regarding the chronic impacts of EMFs on public health is 
inconclusive, and the staff will continue to follow developments in this area. 

5.9 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations 

This section addresses the radiological impacts of normal operations of a new nuclear power 
plant on the PSEG Site, including a discussion of the estimated radiation dose to a member of 
the public and to the biota inhabiting the area around the PSEG Site. Estimated doses to 
workers are also discussed. The determination of radiological impacts was based on the PPE 
approach, where bounding direct radiation and liquid and gaseous radiological effluents were 
used in the evaluation. 

5.9.1 Exposure Pathways 

The public and biota would be exposed to increased ambient background radiation from normal 
operations of a new plant at the PSEG Site via liquid effluent, gaseous effluent, and direct 
radiation pathways. PSEG estimated the potential exposures to the public and biota by 
evaluating exposure pathways typical of those surrounding a new nuclear power plant at the 
PSEG Site. PSEG considered pathways that could cause the highest calculated radiological 


NUREG-2168 


5-82 


November 2015 






Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


dose based on the use of the environment by the residents located around the site 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280; PSEG 2015-TN4283). For example, factors such as the location of 
homes in the area, consumption of milk from dairy cows and goats in the area, consumption of 
meat, and consumption of vegetables grown in area gardens were considered. 

For the liquid effluent release pathway, PSEG considered the following exposure pathways in 
evaluating the dose to the maximally exposed individual (MEI): (1) ingestion of aquatic 
organisms as food (i.e., fish and invertebrates); (2) ingestion of meats, vegetables, and milk; 
and (3) radiation exposure from swimming and boating activities on the Delaware River. The 
drinking water exposure pathway was not considered, because the Delaware River is composed 
of brackish water and is not a potable source of water. Liquid effluents were assumed to be 
released through a site outfall into the Delaware River. The analysis for population dose 
considered the same exposure pathways as those used for the individual dose assessment. 

For the gaseous release pathway, PSEG considered the following exposure pathways in 
evaluating the dose to the MEI and to the population: (1) immersion in airborne activity in the 
plume; (2) direct radiation exposure from deposited activity on the ground; (3) inhalation of 
airborne activity in the plume; (4) ingestion of meat and milk, including goat milk; and (5) 
ingestion of garden fruit and vegetables (see Figure 5-6). 

For population doses from the gaseous effluents, PSEG used the same exposure pathways as 
used for the individual dose assessment, including the assumed cow and goat milk ingestion 
pathway. All agricultural products grown within 50 mi of the PSEG Site were assumed to be 
consumed by the population within 50 mi of the site (Figure 5-6). 

PSEG states that sources of direct radiation from SGS and HCGS (including an operational 
ISFSI) are shielded and do not contribute significantly to the external radiation levels at the site 
boundary or the population. If an ISFSI is needed for a plant at the PSEG Site, the impacts 
would likely be similar, namely not contributing significantly to radiation levels at the site 
boundary or to offsite radiation levels. As discussed in Section 2.11, doses from SGS and 
HCGS due to direct radiation are measured using thermoluminescent dosimeters located 
around the site, and the measured values are comparable to the preoperational background 
radiation data. PSEG states that direct dose contribution from the PSEG Site would be 
bounded by the ABWR design and that the direct dose from the other advanced reactor designs 
being considered would be less than the ABWR design (PSEG 2015-TN4280; PSEG 2015- 
TN4283). 

Exposure pathways considered by PSEG in the ER in evaluating dose to biota are shown in 
Figure 5-7 and include the following 

• ingestion of aquatic foods, 

• ingestion of water, 

• external exposure from water immersion or surface effect, 

• inhalation of airborne radionuclides, 

• external exposure to immersion in gaseous effluent plumes, and 

• surface exposure from deposition of iodine and particulates from gaseous effluents. 


November 2015 


5-83 


NUREG-2168 



Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


The NRC staff reviewed the exposure pathways for the public and nonhuman biota identified by 
PSEG and found them to be appropriate, based on documentation review and interviews with 
PSEG staff during the Environmental Site Audit in May 2012. 



Direct 

Irradiation 


Shoreline 

Exposure 


Water Intake 


Uptake by 
Aquatic Foods 




Nuclear Power Plant 


Transport 


Plant 


Deposition/ Deposition Inhalation Air 

Uptake to ©round and Skin Submersion 

srnwA. Absorption 

Exposure to 
Deposited (tDW. ) 

^^1 Materials Y \ i ^0 -4^1) 


Liquid 

Effluents 


WM |/lilto%Vc'«op Ingestion 


ejection 


Swimming, Boating 


>)U 


Ingestion 


, Ingestion of 
Aquatic Food 


Figure 5-6. Exposure Pathways to Humans (Source: Modified from Soldat et al. 1974- 
TN710) 


NUREG-2168 


5-84 


November 2015 























































Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 



Exposure to Shoreline Sediments 


Ingestion of Plants 


Ingestion of Aquatic Food 


Swimming 


Immersion in Water 


Ingestion 


Uptake by 
Aquatic Food 


Nuclear Power Plant 


Air 

Submersion 


Plant 

Deposition/ 

Uptake Deposition 
to Ground 


Inhalation 
and Skin 
Absorption 


Exposure to Deposited Materials 


Liquid 

Effluents 


Figure 5-7. Exposure Pathways to Biota Other than Humans (Source: Soldat et al. 1974- 
TN710) 


November 2015 


5-85 


NUREG-2168 





















































Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


5.9.2 Radiation Doses to Members of the Public 

PSEG calculated the dose to the MEI and the population living within a 50-mi radius of the 
PSEG Site from both the liquid and gaseous effluent release pathways (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 
As discussed in the previous sections, direct radiation exposure to MEI from sources of 
radiation at a new nuclear power plant would be bounded by the ABWR design. 

5. 9.2 .7 L iquid Effluent Path way 

Liquid pathway doses to the MEI were calculated using the LADTAP II computer program 
(Strenge et al. 1986-TN82). The following activities were considered in the dose calculations: 

(1) consumption of meat; (2) consumption of fish, shellfish, or other aquatic organisms from 
water sources affected by liquid effluents; and (3) direct radiation from swimming in, boating on, 
and shoreline use of water bodies affected by liquid effluents. PSEG stated that the brackish 
water from the Delaware River is not a potable source of water and is not used for irrigation in 
the vicinity of the PSEG Site. 

The liquid effluent releases used in the estimates of dose are found in Table 5.4-2 of the ER 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). Other parameters used as inputs to the LADTAP II program—including 
the effluent discharge rate, dilution factor for discharge, transit time to receptor, and liquid 
pathway consumption and usage factors (i.e., shoreline usage and fish consumption)—are 
found in ER Tables 5.4-3, 11.2-3, and 11.2-4 (PSEG 2015-TN4280). PSEG calculated liquid 
pathway doses to the MEI; these dose estimates are shown in ER Table 5.4-4 (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280). The MEI is an adult for whom the majority of the dose comes from fish ingestion, and 
the maximally exposed organ is the gastrointestinal lining of lower intestine (GI-LLI). ER Table 
5.4-11 provides the annual whole body and thyroid doses to the population for the various liquid 
pathways calculated by PSEG (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 


Table 5-15. Doses to the MEI for Liquid Effluent Releases from PSEG 


Pathway 

Total Body 
(mrem/yr) 

Thyroid 

(mrem/yr) 

GI-LLI 

(mrem/yr) 

Fish 

1.02 x IO 2 

1.98 x 10 2 

6.55 x IO' 2 

Invertebrate 

5.17 x io- 3 

2.14 x 10 2 

1.11 X 10' 1 

Shoreline (includes water recreation) 

2.84 x IO 4 

2.84 x io 4 

2.86 x IO 4 

Total 

1.57 x io- 2 

4.15 x 10 2 

1.77 x io- 1 

Age group receiving maximum dose 

Adult 

Adult 

Adult 

Source: PSEG 2015-TN4280. 


The NRC staff recognizes the LADTAP II computer program as an appropriate method for 
calculating the dose to the MEI for liquid effluent releases. The staff performed an independent 
evaluation of liquid pathway doses by using input parameters from the ER, and results were 
similar to those in the ESP. The NRC staff judged all input parameters used in PSEG’s 
calculations to be appropriate. Results of the staffs independent evaluation are presented in 
Appendix G. 


NUREG-2168 


5-86 


November 2015 






Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


5. 9.2.2 Gaseous Effluent Path way 

PSEG calculated the gaseous pathway doses to the MEI using the GASPAR II computer 
program (Strenge et al. 1987-TN83) at the following locations: nearest meat animal, nearest 
milk-producing animals (cow/goat), nearest residence, nearest vegetable garden, and nearest 
site boundary. The GASPAR II computer program was also used to calculate annual population 
doses. The following activities were considered in the dose calculations: (1) direct radiation 
from submersion in the gaseous effluent cloud and exposure to particulates deposited on the 
ground; (2) inhalation of gases and particulates; (3) ingestion of milk and meat from animals 
eating grass affected by gases and particulates deposited on the ground; and (4) ingestion of 
foods (e.g., vegetables) affected by gases and particulates deposited on the ground. 

The gaseous effluent releases used in the estimate of dose to the MEI and population are found 
in ER Table 5.4-1 (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Other parameters used as inputs to the GASPAR II 
program, including population data, milk production rates, vegetable production rates, meat 
production rates, atmospheric dispersion factors, ground deposition factors, receptor locations, 
and consumption factors, are found in ER Tables 5.4-5, 5.4-6, and 5.4-7 (PSEG 2015-TN4280) 
or were obtained by the staff during the Environmental Site Audit. 

Gaseous pathway doses to MEI calculated by PSEG are found in Site Safety Analysis Report 
(SSAR) Table 11.3-7 (PSEG 2015-TN4283). ER Table 5.4-12 shows the annual whole body 
and thyroid doses to the population from various gaseous pathways calculated by PSEG 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

The NRC staff recognizes the GASPAR II computer program as an appropriate tool for 
calculating dose to the MEI and population from gaseous effluent releases. The NRC staff 
performed an independent evaluation of gaseous pathway doses and found similar results (see 
Table 5-16). All input parameters used in the PSEG calculations were judged by the staff to be 
appropriate. Results of the NRC staffs independent evaluation are found in Appendix G. 

Table 5-16. Doses to the MEI from the Gaseous Effluent Pathway for a New Nuclear 


Power Plant (a) 

Pathway 


Total Body 
Dose 

Maximum Organ Dose 

Skin Dose 

Thyroid 

Dose 

Age Group 

(mrem/yr) 

(mrem/yr) 

Organ 

(mrem/yr) 

(mrem/yr) 

Nearest Site 

Boundary (0.24 mi ENE) 





Plume 

All 

3.97 

1.22 x 10 1 

skin 

1.22 x 10 1 

3.97 

Ground 

All 

6.55 x 10 1 

7.69 x 10- 1 

skin 

7.69 x 10' 1 

6.55 x 10 -i 

Inhalation 

Adult 

9.03 x 10- 2 

2.61 

thyroid 

7.97 x 10-2 

2.61 


Teen 

9.31 x 10 2 

3.40 

thyroid 

8.04 x 10-2 

3.40 


Child 

8.44 x 10 2 

4.18 

thyroid 

7.10 x 10-2 

4.18 


Infant 

4.97 x 10 2 

3.79 

thyroid 

4.09 x 10-2 

3.79 

Nearest Resident (2.8 mi NW) 






Plume 

All 

9.52 x 10-2 

2.92 x 10 1 

skin 

2.92 x 10' 1 

9.52 x 10-2 

Ground 

All 

1.53 x IQ 2 

1.80 x 10-2 

skin 

1.80 x IQ 2 

1.53 x 10-2 

November 2015 


5-87 



NUREG-2168 





Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Table 5-16. (continued) 



Total Body 
Dose 

Maximum Organ Dose 

Skin Dose 

Thyroid 

Dose 

Pathway Age Group 

(mrem/yr) 

(mrem/yr) 

Organ 

(mrem/yr) 

(mrem/yr) 

Inhalation Adult 

2.14 x 10- 3 

5.78 x 10 2 

thyroid 

1.91 x 10-3 

5.78 x la 2 

Teen 

2.20 x 10- 3 

7.51 x 10 2 

thyroid 

1.93 x 10-3 

7.51 x 10-2 

Child 

2.00 x 10 3 

9.23 x 10-2 

thyroid 

1.70 x 10-3 

9.23 x 10 2 

Infant 

1.18 x 10 3 

8.36 x 10-2 

thyroid 

9.80 x 10' 4 

8.36 x 10-2 

Vegetables (4.9 mi NW) (b) 






Adult 

1.55 x 10 2 

1.77 x 10 1 

thyroid 

1.35 x 10-2 

1.77 x lO'i 

Teen 

2.32 x 10- 2 

2.25 x 10 1 

thyroid 

2.11 x 10-2 

2.25 x 10 1 

Child 

5.21 x 10-2 

4.29 x 10 1 

thyroid 

4.94 x 10-2 

4.29 x 10' 1 

Meat (4.9 mi NW) (b) 






Adult 

4.90 x 10- 3 

2.26 x 10-2 

bone 

4.66 x 10-3 

1.17 x 10-2 

Teen 

4.03 x 10- 3 

1.90 x 10-2 

bone 

3.88 x 10 3 

9.04 x 10-3 

Child 

7.36 x 10- 3 

3.57 x 10-2 

bone 

7.20 x 10-3 

1.50 x 10-2 

Goat milk (4.9 mi NW) (C) 






Adult 

9.93 x 10-3 

2.53 x io-i 

thyroid 

5.92 x 10-3 

2.53 x 10 1 

Teen 

1.45 x 10-2 

4.02 x 10 -i 

thyroid 

1.03 x 10-2 

4.02 x 10 1 

Child 

2.83 x 10-2 

8.05 x 10 1 

thyroid 

2.42 x 10-2 

8.05 x 10 1 

Infant 

5.44 x IQ 2 

1.94 

thyroid 

4.92 x IQ 2 

1.94 

(a) Ground-level releases were assumed. Doses are based on 3 years of meteorological data (see EIS Section 

2.9.3). 

(b) No infant doses were calculated for the vegetable and meat pathway because the doses that infants receive by 
consumption are only from milk, drinking water, and inhalation (NRC 1977-TN90). 

(c) Goats as milk-producing animals have a more conservative exposure pathway than milk cows (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280). 

Source: PSEG 2015-TN4283. 


5.9.3 Impacts to Members of the Public 

This section describes the NRC staffs evaluation of the estimated impacts from radiological 
releases and direct radiation of a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site. The evaluation 
addresses dose from operations to the MEI located near the PSEG Site and the population 
dose (collective dose to the population within 50 mi) around the site. 

5. 9.3 .7 Maximally Exposed Individual 

PSEG states the total body and organ dose estimates to the MEI from liquid and gaseous 
effluents for a new nuclear power plant would be within the design objectives of Appendix I 
(10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I [TN249]). Total body and maximum organ annual doses at the 
nearest location from liquid effluents were well within the respective 3 mrem and 10 mrem 
Appendix I design objectives. Annual doses at the exclusion area boundary from gaseous 
effluents were well within the Appendix I design objectives of 10 mrad air dose from gamma 
radiation, 20 mrad air dose from beta radiation, 5 mrem to the total body, and 15 mrem to the 
skin. In addition, the dose to the thyroid was within the 15 mrem Appendix I design objective. 

A comparison of dose estimates to MEI for a new nuclear power plant to the Appendix I design 


NUREG-2168 


5-88 


November 2015 









Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


objectives is found in Table 5-17. The NRC staff completed an independent evaluation of 
compliance with Appendix I dose design objectives and found similar results, as shown in 
Appendix G. Gaseous and liquid effluents from the PSEG Site would be below the Appendix I 
dose design objectives (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Table 5-17. Comparison of MEI Dose Estimates from Liquid and Gaseous Effluents of the 
PSEG Site to Design Objectives 


Type of Dose 

Annual Dose 

Limit 

Liquid Effluent 

Total Body (mrem) 

0.02 

3 

Maximum Organ - GI-LLI (a) (mrem) 

0.18 

10 

Gaseous Effluent 

Gamma Air (mrad) 

6.10 

10 

Beta Air (mrad) 

11.0 

20 

Total Body (mrem) 

4.62 

5 

Skin (mrem) 

12.2 

15 

Iodine and Particulates (Gaseous Effluents) 

Maximum Organ - Thyroid (mrem) 

7.22 

15 


(a) GI-LLI = gastrointestinal lining of lower intestine. 
Sources: PSEG 2015-TN4280; 10 CFR Part 50-TN249. 


PSEG compared the combined dose estimates from direct radiation and gaseous and liquid 
effluents from the existing units (SGS Unit 1, SGS Unit 2, and HCGS Unit 1) and a new plant at 
the PSEG Site against the 40 CFR Part 190 (TN739). Table 5-18 shows that PSEG’s 
assessment of the total doses to the MEI would be well below the standards of 40 CFR Part 190 
(TN739). The NRC staff completed an independent evaluation of compliance with the 
standards of 40 CFR Part 190 (TN739) and found similar results, as shown in Appendix G. 

5. 9.3.2 Population Dose 

PSEG estimates the annual collective total body dose within a 50-mi radius of the PSEG Site to 
be 65.9 person-rem, based on the liquid and gaseous pathway collective doses provided in ER 
Tables 5.4-11 and 5.4-12, respectively (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Collective dose was estimated 
using a combination of the GASPAR II and LADTAP II computer codes, accounting for gaseous 
and liquid effluent pathways, respectively. The estimated collective dose to the same 
population from natural background radiation is estimated to be about 2,531,000 person- 
rem/yr. The dose from natural background radiation was calculated by multiplying the 50-mi 
radius population estimate (8,138,635) for the year 2081 by the annual background dose rate 
(311 mrem/yr) (NCRP 2009-TN420). The NRC staffs independent estimate of the collective 
dose is discussed in Appendix G. 

Radiation protection experts assume that any amount of radiation may pose some risk of 
causing cancer or a severe hereditary effect and that the risk is greater for higher radiation 
exposures. Therefore, a linear, no-threshold dose response relationship is used to describe the 
relationship between radiation dose and detriments such as cancer induction. Simply stated, 
any increase in dose, no matter how small, results in an incremental increase in health risk. A 


November 2015 


5-89 


NUREG-2168 








Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


recent report by the National Research Council (2006-TN296), the Biological Effects of Ionizing 
Radiation (BEIR) VII report, uses the linear, no-threshold dose response model as a basis for 
estimating the risks from low doses. This approach is accepted by NRC staff as a conservative 
model for estimating health risk from radiation exposure, recognizing the model probably 
overestimates those risks. Based on this method, the NRC staff estimated the risk to the public 
from radiation exposure using the nominal probability coefficient for total detriment. In a recent 
publication of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP, ICRP 2007- 
TN422), a health detriment of 570 was associated with fatal cancers, nonfatal cancers, and 
severe hereditary effects per 1,000,000 person-rem or 0.00057 effects per person-rem. 


Table 5-18. Comparison of Doses for the PSEG Site to 40 CFR Part 190 



Type of Dose 

Liquid 

Gaseous 

Direct (9) 

Total 

Limit 

Dual 

Total Body (mrem/yr) 

3.14 x 10' 2(a) 

4.00 x lO 1 ^) 

2.5 

2.93 

— 

New 

Thyroid (mrem/yr) 

8.30 x 10 2(b) 

4.26 (e) 

2.5 

6.84 

— 

units 

Other Organ (mrem/yr) 

3.54 x io- 1 ^ 

1.10(0 

2.5 

3.95 

— 

Existing 

Total Body (mrem/yr) 

6.69 x 10 5 

5.29 x 10 3 


5.36 x 10- 3 

— 

Units 

Thyroid (mrem/yr) 

Not Avail. 

Not Avail. 


2.04 x 10 2 

— 


Other Organ (mrem/yr) 

Not Avail. 

Not Avail. 


2.04 x 10" 2 

— 

Site 

Total Body (mrem/yr) 

3.15 x 10' 2 

4.05 x 10' 1 


2.94 

25 

Total 

Thyroid (mrem/yr) 

Not Avail. 

Not Avail. 


6.86 

75 


Other Organ (mrem/yr) 

Not Avail. 

Not Avail. 


3.97 

25 


Note: Not Avail. = Not Available. The Radioactive Effluent Release Report (RERR) provides total liquid and 

gaseous dose from SGS and HCGS but does not provide a breakdown into the separate liquid and gaseous dose 

component for organ and thyroid dose. 

(a) Liquid MEI for total body dose is an adult. Value is obtained from ER Table 5.4-4 and multiplied by two to 
account for dual units (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

(b) Liquid MEI for the thyroid dose is an adult. Value is obtained from ER Table 5.4-4 and multiplied by two to 
account for dual units (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

(c) Liquid MEI for the limiting organ GI-LLI dose is an adult. Value is obtained from ER Table 5.4-4 and multiplied 
by two to account for dual units (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

(d) Gaseous MEI for this case is a child. Value is the sum of child total body dose from meat, milk, vegetable, 
and inhalation exposure plus the ground plan and plume exposure (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

(e) Gaseous MEI for this case is an infant. Value is the sum of infant thyroid dose from milk and inhalation 
exposure plus the ground plan and plume exposure (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

(f) Gaseous MEI for this case is a child, and the limiting organ is the bone. Value is the sum of child bone dose 
from meat, milk, vegetable, and inhalation exposure plus the ground plan and plume exposure (PSEG 2015- 
TN4280). 

(g) A single unit ABWR is the bounding direct radiation dose at the PSEG Site (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Sources: PSEG 2015-TN4280; 40 CFR Part 190-TN739. 


Both the National Council on Radiation Protection & Measurements (NCRP) and ICRP suggest 
that when the collective effective dose is smaller than the reciprocal of the relevant risk 
detriment (i.e., less than 1/0.00057, which is less than 1,754 person-rem), the assessment 
should note the most likely number of excess health effects is zero (NCRP 1995-TN728; 

ICRP 2007-TN422). As noted above, the estimated annual collective total body dose to the 
population living within 50 mi of the PSEG Site is 65.9 person-rem, which is less than the 
1,754 person-rem value that both ICRP and NCRP suggest would most likely result in zero 
excess health effects (NCRP 1995-TN728; ICRP 2007-TN422). 


NUREG-2168 


5-90 


November 2015 









Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


In addition, at the request of the U.S. Congress, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) conducted a 
study and published a report in 1990 titled Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities 
(Jablon et al. 1990-TN1257). The NCI report included an evaluation of health statistics around 
all nuclear power plants, as well as several other nuclear fuel cycle facilities, in operation in the 
United States in 1981; it found "no evidence that an excess occurrence of cancer has resulted 
from living near nuclear facilities” (Jablon et al. 1990-TN1257). 

5. 9.3.3 Summary of Radiological Impacts to Members of the Public 

The NRC staff evaluated the health impacts from routine gaseous and liquid radiological effluent 
releases from a new nuclear plant at the PSEG Site. Based on the information provided by 
PSEG and NRC staffs own independent evaluation, the NRC staff concludes there would be no 
observable health impacts to the public from normal operation of a new nuclear power plant, the 
health impacts would be SMALL, and additional mitigation would not be warranted. 

5.9.4 Occupational Doses to Workers 

PSEG concluded the maximum annual occupational dose from a new plant at the PSEG Site is 
expected to be less than that from SGS and HCGS because the proposed PSEG Site designs 
and application of technology would result in reduced occupational radiation exposure. For 
2007, the collective total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) to workers was 118 person-rem at 
SGS and 191 person-rem at HCGS (PSEG 2015-TN4280). If two new API 000 units were 
constructed at the PSEG Site, some dose would be received by construction workers at the 
second unit from operation of the first unit. In the API 000 Design Control Document (DCD) 
(Westinghouse 2011-TN261), Westinghouse estimated an annual collective dose of 
63.2 man-rem/yr for the following activities: reactor operations and surveillance (21.8%); routine 
inspection and maintenance (19.2%); in-service inspection (22.7%); special maintenance 
(23.7%); waste processing (8.2%); and refueling (4.4%). Considering this estimate, it is 
expected that any dose received by construction workers at the second new unit from the 
operation of the first new unit would be SMALL. 

5.9.5 Impacts to Biota Other than Humans 

PSEG estimated doses to biota in the site environs using surrogate species. Surrogate species 
used in the ER are well defined and provide an acceptable method for evaluating doses to the 
biota (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Surrogate species analysis was performed for aquatic species 
such as fish, invertebrates, and algae, and for terrestrial species such as muskrats, raccoons, 
and birds, such as herons and ducks. Exposure pathways considered in evaluating doses to 
biota other than humans were discussed in Section 5.9.1 and are shown in Figure 5-7. The 
NRC staff has reviewed PSEG’s analysis and completed an independent evaluation that found 
similar results, as shown in Appendix G. 

5.9.5.1 L iquid Effluent Path way 

PSEG used the LADTAP II computer code (Strenge et al. 1986-TN82) to calculate doses to the 
biota from the liquid effluent pathway. In estimating the concentration of radioactive effluents in 
the Delaware River, PSEG included no credit for dilution or transit time from the outflow. Liquid 
pathway doses were higher for biota compared to humans because of considerations for 


November 2015 


5-91 


NUREG-2168 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


bioaccumulation of radionuclides, ingestion of aquatic plants, ingestion of invertebrates, 
increased time spent in water and on the shoreline compared to humans, and the assumption of 
no dilution beyond the outflow. The liquid effluent releases used in estimating biota dose are 
found in ER Table 5.4-13 (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

5. 9.5.2 Gaseous Effluent Pathway 

Gaseous effluents would contribute to the total body dose of the terrestrial surrogate species 
(i.e., muskrat, raccoon, heron, and duck). The exposure pathways include inhalation of airborne 
radionuclides, external exposure due to immersion in gaseous effluent plumes, and surface 
exposure from deposition of iodine and particulates from gaseous effluents. PSEG used the 
calculations methods of MEI from gaseous effluent releases described in Section 5.9.2 to 
calculate dose to terrestrial surrogate species, with a modification increasing the ground 
deposition factors by a factor of two to account for the closer proximity of terrestrial animals to 
the ground compared to the MEI. The gaseous effluent releases used in estimating dose are 
found in ER Table 5.4-1, and the gaseous doses also are presented in ER Table 5.4-13 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). Total body dose estimates to the surrogate species from the gaseous 
pathway are shown in Table 5-19 (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Table 5-19. Biota Other Than Human Doses from Liquid and Gaseous Effluents 
(per new unit) 


Biota 

Liquid Effluents 
Dose 
(mrad/yr) 

Gaseous 
Effluents Dose 
(mrad/yr) 

Total Body Biota 
Dose All Pathways 
(mrad/yr) 

Fish 

1.66 

- 

1.66 

Invertebrate 

5.88 

- 

5.88 

Algae 

8.22 

- 

8.22 

Muskrat 

1.89 

5.37 

7.27 

Raccoon 

0.83 

5.37 

6.20 

Heron 

2.02 

5.37 

7.40 

Duck 

2.15 

5.37 

7.52 

Source: PSEG 2015-TN4280. 


5. 9.5.3 Impact of Estimated Non human Biota Doses 

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and NCRP reported a chronic absorbed dose 
rate of no greater than 1,000 mrad/d would ensure protection of aquatic organism population 
(IAEA 1992-TN712; NCRP 1991-TN729). IAEA also concluded that a chronic absorbed dose 
rate of 100 mrad/d or less does not appear to cause observable changes in terrestrial animal 
populations (IAEA 1992-TN712). 

Table 5-20 compares estimated absorbed dose rates to surrogate biota species produced by 
releases from the PSEG Site (PSEG 2015-TN4280) to the IAEA/NCRP biota dose guidelines 
(IAEA 1992-TN712; NCRP 1991-TN729). The absorbed dose rates from all surrogate species 
were much less than the guidelines. The absorbed dose rate estimated for the PSEG Site is 
conservative because no consideration was given to dilution or decay of liquid effluents during 
transit. Actual absorbed dose rates to biota are likely to be much less. 


NUREG-2168 


5-92 


November 2015 







Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Table 5-20. Comparison of Biota Dose Rate from a New Nuclear Power Plant at the PSEG 
Site to IAEA Guidelines for Biota Protection 

Absorbed Dose Rate (mrad/d) 

Estimate for Protection 

Biota PSEG Site (a),(b) Guidelines (b)(c) 


Fish 

0.0045 

1,000 

Invertebrate 

0.0161 

1,000 

Algae 

0.0225 

1,000 

Muskrat 

0.0199 

100 

Raccoon 

0.0170 

100 

Heron 

0.0203 

100 

Duck 

0.0206 

100 


(a) Estimate of the total absorbed dose rate based on the annual 
dose to biota other than human from liquid and gaseous 
effluents of ER Table 5.4-13 (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

(b) Divide mrad/d by 100 to obtain mGy/d. 

(c) IAEA and NCRP guidelines for protection of biota populations 
(IAEA 1992-TN712; NCRP 1991-TN729). 


On the basis of the information provided by PSEG and the NRC staff s independent evaluation, 
the NRC staff concludes that the radiological impact on nonhuman biota from a new nuclear 
power plant at the PSEG Site would be SMALL, and additional mitigation is not warranted. 

5.9.6 Radiological Monitoring 

A REMP has been in place for the PSEG Site since operations began in 1977, with 
preoperational sample collection activities from 1973 to 1976 (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The 
REMP includes monitoring of the airborne exposure pathway, direct exposure pathway, water 
exposure pathway, aquatic exposure pathway from the Delaware River, and ingestion exposure 
pathway in a 5-mi radius of the station, with indicator locations near the site perimeter and 
control locations at distances greater than 10 mi. An annual survey is conducted for the area 
surrounding the site to verify the accuracy of assumptions used in the analyses, including the 
occurrence of milk production. The preoperational REMP sampled various media in the 
environment to determine a baseline from which to observe the magnitude and fluctuation of 
radioactivity in the environment once the new power plant began operation. 

The preoperational program included collection and analysis of air particulates, precipitation, 
crops, soil, well water, surface water, fish, and silt, as well as measurement of ambient gamma 
radiation. After operation of SGS Unit 1 began in 1977, the monitoring program continued to 
assess the radiological impacts on workers, the public, and the environment. Radiological 
releases are summarized in the Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report (e.g., 
PSEG 2014-TN4299) and the PSEG Nuclear LLC Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report 
for the Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations (e.g., PSEG 2014-TN4219). The limits for 
all radiological releases are specified in the respective HCGS and SGS offsite dose calculation 
manuals (ODCMs). Administrative controls and physical barriers are currently in place or will be 
implemented to monitor and minimize dose to construction workers from the independent spent 
fuel storage installation (ISFSI). 


November 2015 


5-93 


NUREG-2168 







Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


As discussed in Section 2.11, operations personnel at SGS in 2002 identified a release of 
radioactive liquids from the Unit 1 Spent Fuel Pool to the environment. In the HCGS and SGS 
annual Radioactive Effluent Release Reports (RERR), PSEG describes how it developed a 
Remedial Action Work Plan and installed a Groundwater Recovery System to remove the 
groundwater containing tritium (PSEG 2013-TN2739). The system is designed to prevent 
migration of the tritium plume toward the plant boundary and to reduce the concentrations of 
tritium in the groundwater. An RGPP was established in 2006 with monitoring wells installed 
and developed for both SGS and HCGS that allow for groundwater samples to be collected and 
analyzed at a minimum frequency of semi-annually to a lower limit of detection of 200 pCi/L. 
RGPP data are published in the annual RERR (PSEG 2013-TN2739). 

No additional monitoring program has been established for the PSEG Site. To the greatest 
extent practical, the REMP would use the procedures and sampling locations used by the 
existing REMP, ODCMs, and recent monitoring reports from HCGS and SGS. However, if any 
new monitoring locations and other monitoring requirements are established for a new plant, 
they would be provided in the COL application (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The NRC staff have 
reviewed these documents and determined the current operational monitoring program is 
adequate to establish the radiological baseline for comparison with the expected impacts on the 
environment related to building and operating a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site. 

5.10 Nonradiological Waste Impacts 

This section describes potential impacts on the environment that could result from the 
generation, handling, and disposal of nonradioactive waste and mixed waste during operation of 
a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site. As discussed in Section 3.4.4, the types of 
nonradioactive waste that would be generated, handled, and disposed of during operational 
activities include solid wastes, liquid effluents, and air emissions. Solid wastes include 
municipal waste, dredge spoils, sewage treatment sludge, and industrial wastes. Liquid waste 
includes NPDES-permitted discharges (such as effluents that contain chemicals or biocides), 
wastewater effluents, site stormwater runoff, and other liquid wastes (such as used oils, paints, 
and solvents that require offsite disposal). Air emissions would primarily be generated by 
vehicles, auxiliary boilers, diesel generators and/or gas turbines, and cooling towers. In 
addition, small quantities of hazardous waste and mixed waste (waste that has both hazardous 
and radioactive characteristics) may be generated during plant operations. The assessment of 
potential impacts resulting from these types of wastes is presented in the following subsections. 

5.10.1 Impacts to Land 

The operation of a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site would generate solid and liquid 
wastes similar to those already generated by the current operations of HCGS and SGS. 

Although the total volume of solid and liquid wastes would increase with the addition of a new 
nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site, no new solid or liquid waste types are expected to result 
from operating the new plant (PSEG 2015-TN4280). PSEG has indicated it would continue to 
use recycling and waste minimization practices in place at SGS and HCGS for nonradioactive 
solid waste generated from the operation of a new nuclear power plant. Solid wastes—such as 
used oils, antifreeze, scrap metal, lead-acid batteries, and paper—that could be recycled or 
reused would be managed through the approved and licensed contractor. Solid waste that 


NUREG-2168 


5-94 


November 2015 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


could not be recycled or reused would be transported to licensed offsite commercial disposal 
sites (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Spoils from maintenance and dredging could be used as fill 
material. Debris collected on trash screens at the water intake structure would be disposed of 
offsite in accordance with State regulations. Sanitary wastes generated by the operation of a 
new nuclear power plant would be treated on the site and discharged to the Delaware River in 
accordance with NJDEP and DRBC permits and requirements. Residual wastes are disposed 
of offsite in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and permit conditions imposed by 
Federal, State, and local agencies. 

Effective practices for recycling and minimizing waste are already in place at SGS and HCGS, 
and PSEG plans to manage solid and liquid wastes from a new nuclear power plant in a similar 
manner in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and local requirements and standards. 
For these reasons, the review team expects that impacts on land from nonradioactive wastes 
generated during operation of a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site would be minimal 
and that no further mitigation is warranted. 

5.10.2 Impacts to Water 

Effluents containing chemicals or biocides from the operation of a new nuclear power plant at 
the PSEG Site would be discharged mainly to the Delaware River. Discharge sources would 
include cooling tower blowdown, wastewater from auxiliary systems, and stormwater runoff. 
Sections 5.2.3.1 and 5.2.3.2 discuss impacts on the quality of the surface water and 
groundwater, respectively, from operation of a new plant. Nonradioactive liquid effluents 
discharged to the Delaware River would be subject to limitations contained in the site’s NJDEP 
and DRBC water-quality permits (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Because there are regulated practices 
for managing liquid discharges containing chemicals or biocides and other wastewater, and 
because there are plans for managing stormwater, the review team concludes that impacts on 
water from nonradioactive effluents during the operation of a new nuclear power plant at the 
PSEG Site would be minimal, and no further mitigation is warranted. 

5.10.3 Impacts to Air 

Operation of a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site would result in gaseous and 
particulate emissions from the operation of emergency diesel generators and/or gas turbines, 
engine-driven emergency equipment, auxiliary boilers, and cooling towers. The emergency 
diesel generators and/or gas turbines and engine-driven emergency equipment would operate 
intermittently, and the auxiliary boilers would operate primarily during the winter months. The 
cooling towers would operate continuously and be a constant source of particulate emissions. 

In addition, increased vehicular traffic associated with the personnel needed to operate a new 
plant would increase vehicle emissions in the area. Impacts on air quality are discussed in 
detail in Section 5.7.1. Increases in air emissions from operation of a new plant would be in 
accordance with permits issued by the NJDEP Division of Air Quality that would ensure 
compliance with Federal, State, and local air-quality control laws and regulations. Because 
there are regulated practices for managing air emissions from stationary sources, the review 
team concludes impacts on air from nonradioactive emissions during the operation of a new 
nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site would be minor, and no further mitigation is warranted. 


November 2015 


5-95 


NUREG-2168 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


5.10.4 Mixed Waste Impacts 

Mixed waste contains both low-level radioactive waste and hazardous waste. The generation, 
storage, treatment, and disposal of mixed waste is regulated by the Atomic Energy Act of 1964 
(42 USC 2011 et seq. -TN663), the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 (42 USC 82 et seq. - 
TNI032) as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA, 42 USC 6901 
et seq. -TN1281) in 1976, and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (42 USC 6921 et 
seq. -TNI033) (which amended RCRA in 1984). Neither HCGS nor SGS currently has 
processes that result in the generation of mixed waste (PSEG 2015-TN4280). In the past, most 
mixed wastes generated at HCGS and SGS resulted from the contamination of oils (hydraulic 
and lubricating) used in plant systems. All oils currently used in plant systems are 
nonhazardous and do not result in mixed waste if they become radiologically contaminated. 
Processes for a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site are similarly designed to prevent the 
generation of mixed waste (PSEG 2015-TN4280). PSEG has contingency plans and spill 
prevention procedures for treatment, storage, and disposal in the unlikely event of mixed waste 
generation. Because effective practices for minimizing mixed waste are already in place at SGS 
and HCGS, the review team concludes impacts from the generation of mixed waste during 
operation of a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site would be minimal, and no further 
mitigation is warranted. 

5.10.5 Summary of Waste Impacts 

Solid, liquid, gaseous, and mixed wastes generated during operation of a new nuclear power 
plant at the PSEG Site would be handled according to county, State, and Federal regulations. 
NPDES permits for permitted releases of cooling and auxiliary system effluents would ensure 
compliance with CWA as well as NJDEP and DRBC water-quality requirements. Wastewater 
discharge would be required to comply with NPDES limitations. Air emissions from new plant 
operations would be compliant with air-quality standards as permitted by NJDEP Division of Air 
Quality. Processes for a new plant at the PSEG Site are designed to prevent the generation of 
mixed wastes. 

The review team concludes the potential impacts from nonradioactive waste resulting from 
operation of a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site would be SMALL, and further 
mitigation is not warranted, on the basis of the following: 

• information provided by PSEG; 

• effective practices for recycling, minimizing, managing, and disposing of wastes already in 
use at SGS and HCGS; 

• the review team’s expectation that regulatory approvals would be obtained to regulate the 
additional waste that would be generated during operation of a new nuclear power plant; and 

• the review team’s independent evaluation. 

Cumulative impacts on water and air from nonradioactive emissions and effluents are discussed 
in Sections 7.2.2.1 and 7.6, respectively. For the purposes of Chapter 9, the staff concludes 
that (1) there would be no substantive differences between the impacts from nonradioactive 
waste at the PSEG Site and those at the four alternative sites, and (2) no substantive 
cumulative impacts warrant further discussion beyond those discussed for the alternative sites 
in Section 9.3. 


NUREG-2168 


5-96 


November 2015 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 

5.11 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents 

The NRC staff considered the radiological consequences on the environment of potential 
accidents at a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site. Consequence estimates are based 
on the following four different reactor designs: ABWR, API 000 with a dual unit, the U.S. 
Evolutionary Power Reactor (U.S. EPR), and the U.S. Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor 
(US-APWR). 

The term “accident," as used in this section, refers to any off-normal event not addressed in 
Section 5.9 that results in release of radioactive materials into the environment. The focus of 
this review is on events that could lead to releases substantially in excess of permissible limits 
for normal operations. Normal release limits are specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, 

Table 2 (TN283). 

Many safety features combine to reduce the risk associated with accidents at nuclear power 
plants. Safety features in the design, construction, and operation of the sites, which compose 
the first line of defense, are intended to prevent the release of radioactive materials from the 
site. The design objectives and the measures for keeping levels of radioactive materials in 
effluents to unrestricted areas as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) are specified in 
10 CFR 50, Appendix I (TN249). There are additional measures designed to mitigate the 
consequences of failures in the first line of defense. These include NRC reactor site criteria in 
10 CFR 100 (TN282), which require the site to have certain characteristics that reduce the risk 
to the public and the potential impacts of an accident, and emergency preparedness plans and 
protective action measures for the site and environs, as set forth in 10 CFR 50.47 (TN249), 

10 CFR 50, Appendix E (TN249), and NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1 (NRC 1980-TN512). All of 
these safety features, measures, and plans make up the defense-in-depth philosophy to protect 
the health and safety of the public and the environment. 

On March 11, 2011, and for an extended period thereafter, several nuclear power plants in 
Japan experienced the loss of important equipment necessary to maintain reactor cooling after 
the combined effects of severe natural phenomena: an earthquake followed by the tsunami it 
caused. In response to these events, the Commission established a task force to review the 
current regulatory framework in place in the United States and to make recommendations for 
improvements. The task force reported the results of its review (NRC 2011-TN684) on July 12 
and July 19, 2011. As part of the short-term review, the task force concluded that, while 
improvements are expected to be made as a result of the lessons learned, the continued 
operation of nuclear power plants and licensing activities for new plants do not pose an 
imminent risk to public health and safety. In addition, a number of areas were recommended to 
the Commission for long-term consideration. Collectively, these recommendations are intended 
to clarify and strengthen the regulatory framework for protection against severe natural 
phenomena, for mitigation of effects of such events, for coping with emergencies, and for 
improving NRC program effectiveness. 

On March 12, 2012, the NRC issued three orders and a request for information (RFI) to holders 
of U.S. commercial nuclear reactor licenses and construction permits to enhance safety at 
U.S. reactors based on specific lessons learned from the event at Japan’s Fukushima Dai-ichi 
nuclear power plant as given in the task force report. 


November 2015 


5-97 


NUREG-2168 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


The first and third orders apply to every U.S. commercial nuclear power plant, including recently 
licensed new reactors. The first order requires a three-phase approach for mitigating 
beyond-design-basis external events. Licensees are required to use installed equipment and 
resources to maintain or restore core, containment, and spent fuel pool cooling during the initial 
phase. During the transition phase, licensees are required to provide sufficient, portable, onsite 
equipment and consumables to maintain or restore these functions until they can be 
accomplished with resources brought from offsite. During the final phase, licensees are 
required to obtain sufficient offsite resources to sustain those functions indefinitely (77 FR 
16091-TN2476). The second order requires reliable hardened vent systems at boiling water 
reactor facilities with “Mark I” and “Mark II” containment structures (77 FR 16098-TN2477). The 
third order requires reliable spent fuel pool level instrumentation (77 FR 16082-TN1424). The 
RFI addressed five topics: (1) seismic reevaluations, (2) flooding reevaluations, (3) seismic 
hazard walkdowns, (4) flooding hazard walkdowns, and (5) a request for licensees to assess 
their current communications system and equipment under conditions of onsite and offsite 
damage and prolonged station blackout as well as perform a staffing study to determine the 
number and qualifications of staff required to fill all necessary positions in response to a multi¬ 
unit event (NRC 2012-TN2198; NRC 2012-TN2903). The RFI requested reactor licensees to 
reevaluate seismic and flooding hazards using present-day methods to determine if the plant’s 
design basis needs to be changed. 

On April 30, 2015, the NRC staff proposed rulemaking to the Commission in SECY-15-0065 
concerning the mitigation of beyond-design-basis events that would establish requirements for 
certain nuclear power reactor licensees and applicants (NRC 2015-TN4300). This proposed 
rulemaking would principally place into regulations the three orders previously discussed along 
with other additional requirements. Namely, the proposed rulemaking would 1) make 
generically applicable requirements previously imposed by order for mitigation of beyond- 
design-basis external events and for monitoring spent fuel pool wide-range level; 2) include 
proposed provisions to have an integrated response capability; 3) include proposed 
requirements for increased emergency response capabilities for multi-unit events; 4) provide 
requirements for new reactor designs; and 5) address a number of petitions for rulemaking 
(PRMs) submitted in the aftermath of the March 2011 Fukushima Dai-ichi event. The 
Commission will determine whether to approve or modify the NRC staffs proposed rule before it 
is published for public comment. 

The NRC staff issued RAIs to PSEG requesting information to address the first RFI topic 
(NRC 2012-TN2904). All of the containment designs differ from those identified in the 
second order; therefore, the actions addressed in this order are not applicable to the PSEG Site. 
The NRC’s evaluation of PSEG’s responses is addressed in the NRC’s Final Safety Evaluation 
Report, which includes those changes that were identified by the NRC staff as being necessary 
as well as those committed by the applicant in their regulatory commitments associated with 
RAI responses or otherwise. All these changes were incorporated by the applicant in Revision 
4 of the ESP application (PSEG 2015-TN4283). Additionally the NRC staff considered all 
Fukushima Near-Term Task Force recommendations contained in SECY-11-0124, 
“Recommended Actions To Be Taken Without Delay From The Near-Term Task Force Report” 
(NRC 2011-TN4301; NRC 2011-TN4302), for applicability to the PSEG ESP and found that 
most were outside the scope of site suitability requirements for the ESP review. In the case of 
the flooding and seismic reevaluations components of Recommendation 2.1, the NRC staff 


NUREG-2168 


5-98 


November 2015 




Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


determined that these issues were adequately addressed in the application as noted in the 
following text. The NRC staffs evaluation of the Near-Term Task Force recommendations is 
provided in Chapter 20 of the Final Safety Evaluation Report (NRC 2015-TN4369|ADAMS 
Accession No. ML15197A207|). 

The severe accident evaluation presented later in this section draws from the analyses 
developed in the staffs safety review, which includes consideration of severe accidents initiated 
by external events and those that involve fission product releases. The staff evaluation 
discusses the environmental impacts of severe accidents in terms of risk, which considers the 
likelihood of both a severe accident and its consequences. For several reasons discussed 
below, the staff has determined that the Fukushima accident and the NRC’s implementation of 
the task force recommendations do not change the staffs conclusions about the environmental 
impacts of design basis accidents or severe accidents. 

Each new reactor application evaluates the natural phenomena that are pertinent to the site for 
the proposed reactor design by applying present-day regulatory guidance and methodologies. 
This includes the determination of the characteristics of the flood and seismic hazards. With 
respect to flooding, the NRC issued a letter to PSEG documenting the need for PSEG to 
provide the necessary flood hazard analysis in the SSAR consistent with present-day guidance 
and methodologies (NRC 2014-TN3589). PSEG addressed the NRC staffs needs through a 
series of RAI responses containing technical information which was provided into Section 2.4 of 
the SSAR (NRC 2015-TN4283). The NRC staff reviewed and evaluated digital modeling files, 
explanations and calculations submitted by the applicant concerning the potential for flooding at 
the site due to a variety of causes including probable maximum precipitation, probable 
maximum flooding on rivers and streams, potential dam failures, maximum surge and seiche 
flooding, and probable maximum tsunami. Based on a review and evaluation of the applicant’s 
information, the NRC staff finds that the applicant appropriately considered flood-causing 
phenomena and their combinations that are relevant for the PSEG Site. The detailed results of 
the NRC staffs safety review for flooding is provided for public inspection in Section 2.4, 
Hydrologic Engineering, of the Final Safety Evaluation Report (NRC 2015-TN4369|ADAMS 
Accession No. ML15197A207|). 

With respect to the consideration of severe accidents initiated by seismic events, PSEG 
submitted its response (PSEG 2012-TN2905; PSEG 2012-TN2906; PSEG 2012-TN2907; 

PSEG 2013-TN2908; PSEG 2013-TN2910) to the staffs seismic hazard RAI (stemming from 
the first RFI topic) (NRC 2012-TN2904). In this RAI, the applicant was requested to evaluate 
the impacts of the newly released Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source 
Characterization model, as documented in NUREG-2115 (NRC 2012-TN3810), on the PSEG 
Site-specific seismic hazard calculation. This model considers the latest seismic source 
information for the Central and Eastern United States. The NRC staff reviewed and evaluated 
the applicant’s response, which was incorporated in Section 2.5 of the SSAR (NRC 2015- 
TN4283), and determined that the applicant’s analyses of vibratory ground motion adequately 
characterized the PSEG Site. An applicant for a COL or CP referencing the PSEG Site early 
site permit, is expected to use these analyses in its accident analyses and design margin 
determination. The detailed results of the NRC staff’s safety review for seismic events is 
available for public inspection in Section 2.5, Geology, Seismology, and Geotechnical 
Engineering, of the Final Safety Evaluation Report (NRC 2015-TN4369|ML15197A207|). 


November 2015 


5-99 


NUREG-2168 





Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


In addition to the above seismic and flooding considerations, the safety features of the reactor 
designs being considered further support the conclusion that the Fukushima accident does not 
warrant a change in the environmental risks of severe accidents considered in this PSEG ESP 
EIS analysis. In particular, the potential design-related vulnerabilities raised by the event at 
Fukushima, such as the impact of the beyond-design-basis extended loss of alternating current 
(AC) to the essential and nonessential switchgear buses, would not materially affect the current 
bounding analysis of severe accidents for the PSEG Site because the planned reactors have 
been designed with additional capabilities as well as mitigating strategies to withstand such a 
loss of power and prevent and mitigate severe accidents. As previously noted in the task force 
report for one of the designs considered in the ESP application, the API 000 passive safety 
systems would remove the decay heat from the reactor core upon the loss of alternating and/or 
direct current electric power and operate to maintain adequate core cooling for a period of 
72 hours without further operator action, unlike the facilities at the Fukushima site. This core 
cooling by the passive safety systems can be sustained for an extended period beyond 72 hours 
where the only operator action is to re-fill the internal pool that provides the source of water for 
the passive safety systems. Additional details are provided in the NRC staffs Safety Evaluation 
Report for the AP1000 design certification, NUREG-1793 Supplement 2 (NRC 2011-TN2479). 

Other reactor designs considered by PSEG in its ER rely upon active safety systems and 
additional coping capabilities, along with mitigating strategies for a beyond-design-basis event 
such as an extended loss of AC power (NRC 2015-TN4280). The NRC also issued orders to 
the construction permit and design certification licensees (77 FR 16091-TN2476; 77 FR 16082- 
TN1424). The US-APWR and U.S. EPR reactor designs that are currently under review would 
satisfy these orders before their certification. If the ABWR certified design is proposed for a 
particular site, addressing the NRC Fukushima, then related orders or rules would be 
undertaken as part of the site-specific combined or operating licensing application review 
process. The mitigation strategies for beyond-design-basis external events proposed for any 
new reactor application would be evaluated by the NRC staff against the functional 
requirements of NRC Order EA-12-049 as described in Interim Staff Guidance JLD-ISG-2012- 
01 (NRC 2012-TN3163). In accordance with the Interim Staff Guidance, future COL applicants 
would be responsible for describing their proposed overall implementation of these mitigation 
strategies, such as the industry’s “FLEX” and station blackout mitigating strategies, or they must 
provide design or engineered alternatives. As such, at the time of a COL application, PSEG 
would need to document how the selected reactor design and proposed mitigation strategies 
meet the requirements of the orders. 

In sum, none of the information the staff has identified about the Fukushima accident or the 
steps taken by the NRC to date to implement the task force recommendations suggests that the 
seismic and flooding hazards or the available mitigation capability (i.e., passive safety systems) 
assumed in the PSEG ESP EIS analysis of severe accidents would be affected. For these 
reasons, the NRC’s analysis of the environmental impacts of design basis and severe accidents 
presented herein remains valid. 

This section discusses (1) the types of radioactive materials; (2) the paths to the environment; 

(3) the relationship between radiation dose and health effects; and (4) the environmental 
impacts of reactor accidents, including both design basis accidents (DBAs) and severe 
accidents. The environmental impacts of accidents during transportation of spent fuel are 
discussed in Chapter 6. 


NUREG-2168 


5-100 


November 2015 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


The potential for dispersion of radioactive materials in the environment depends on the 
mechanical forces that physically transport the materials and on the physical and chemical 
forms of the material. Radioactive material exists in a variety of physical and chemical forms. 
The majority of the radioactive material in the fuel is in the form of nonvolatile solids. However, 
there is a significant amount of radioactive material in the form of volatile solids or gases. The 
gaseous radioactive materials include the chemically inert noble gases (e.g., krypton and 
xenon), which have a high potential for release. Radioactive forms of iodine, which are created 
in substantial quantities in the fuel by fission, are volatile. Other radioactive materials formed 
during the operation of a nuclear power plant have lower volatilities and, therefore, have lower 
tendencies to escape from the fuel than the noble gases and iodines. 

Radiation dose to individuals is determined by their proximity to radioactive material, the 
duration of their exposure, and the extent to which they are shielded from the radiation. 
Pathways that lead to radiation exposure include (1) external radiation from radioactive material 
in the air, on the ground, and in the water; (2) inhalation of radioactive material; and 
(3) ingestion of food or water containing material initially deposited on the ground and in water. 

Radiation protection experts assume that any amount of radiation exposure may pose some risk 
of causing cancer or a severe hereditary effect and that the risk is higher for higher radiation 
exposures. Therefore, a linear, no-threshold response relationship is used to describe the 
relationship between radiation dose and detriments such as cancer induction. A report by the 
National Research Council, the BEIR VII report, uses the linear, no-threshold dose response 
model as a basis for estimating the risks from low doses (National Research Council 2006- 
TN296). This approach is accepted by the NRC as a conservative model for estimating health 
risks from radiation exposure, recognizing that the model may overestimate those risks. 

Physiological effects are clinically detectable if individuals receive radiation exposure resulting in 
a dose greater than about 25 rad over a short period of time (hours). Doses of about 250 to 
500 rad received over a relatively short period (hours to a few days) can be expected to cause 
some fatalities. 

5.11.1 Design Basis Accidents 

PSEG evaluated the potential consequences of postulated accidents to demonstrate that an 
ABWR unit, two API 000 units, a U.S. EPR unit, or a US-APWR unit could be constructed and 
operated at the PSEG Site without undue risk to the health and safety of the public 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). These evaluations used a set of DBAs representative of each of the 
reactor designs being considered for the PSEG Site and site-specific meteorological data. The 
set of accidents covers events that range from relatively high probability of occurrence with 
relatively low consequences to relatively low probability with high consequences. 

The bases for analyses of postulated accidents for these four designs are well established 
because these reactors are being reviewed or have been reviewed in the NRC advanced 
reactor design certification process. Potential consequences of DBAs are evaluated following 
procedures outlined in regulatory guides and standard review plans. The potential 
consequences of accidental releases depend on the specific radionuclides released, the amount 
of each radionuclide released, and the meteorological conditions. 


November 2015 


5-101 


NUREG-2168 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


As stated in the ER (PSEG 2015-TN4280), PSEG applied information from the ABWR DCD 
(GE 1997-TN2767), where the source terms are calculated based on Regulatory Guide (RG) 
1.3, Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of a Loss of 
Coolant Accident for Boiling Water Reactors, Revision 2 (NRC 1974-TN85); RG 1.25, 
Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of a Fuel Handling 
Accident in the Fuel Handling and Storage Facility for Boiling and Pressurized Water Reactors, 
Revision 0 (NRC 1972-TN87); and TID-14844, Calculation of Distance Factors for Power and 
Test Reactor Sites (DiNunno et al. 1962-TN21). The ABWR source terms are calculated for a 
power level of 4386 MW(t), which is 102 percent of 4,300 MW(t) (an uprated version of the 
standard ABWR, which is rated at 4,005 MW(t)). 

PSEG states that the source terms for the API 000 (PSEG 2015-TN4280; PSEG 2012-TN2460) 
are based on NUREG-1465, Accident Source Terms for Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants 
(NRC 1995-TN2766), and RG 1.183 (NRC 2000-TN517). The AP1000 source terms are 
calculated for a power level of 3,468 MW(t), which is 102 percent of the rated core power of 
3,400 MW(t). 

PSEG also states that the source terms for the U.S. EPR (PSEG 2015-TN4280; PSEG 2012- 
TN2460) are calculated in accordance with NUREG-0800 (NRC 2007-TN3036) and RG 1.183 
(NRC 2000-TN517). The U.S. EPR source terms are calculated for a reactor power of 
4,612 MW(t) (4,590 MW(t) rated power plus 22 MW(t) heat balance measurement uncertainty). 

PSEG (PSEG 2015-TN4280) applied information from the US-APWR DCD (MHI 2008-TN3169), 
which is based on the source terms methods for evaluating potential accidents from guidance in 
NUREG-0800 (NRC 2007-TN3036) and RG 1.183 (NRC 2000-TN517). The US-APWR source 
terms are calculated for a reactor power of 4,555 MW(t) (102 percent of the rated power of 
4,466 MW(t)). 

For environmental reviews, consequences are evaluated assuming realistic meteorological 
conditions. Meteorological conditions are represented in these consequence analyses by an 
atmospheric dispersion factor, which is also referred to as y/Q. Acceptable methods of 
calculating y/Q for DBAs from meteorological data are set forth in Regulatory Guide 1.145 
(NRC 1983-TN279). Consistent with NUREG-1555 (NRC 2000-TN1160), the 50th percentile 
y/Q values are used that reflect probable accident conditions. 

Table 5-21 lists y/Q values pertinent to the environmental review of DBAs for the PSEG Site 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). The first column lists the time periods and boundaries for which y/Q and 
dose estimates are needed. For the exclusion area boundary, the postulated DBA dose and its 
atmospheric dispersion factor are calculated for a short-term, i.e., 2 hours; for the low population 
zone, they are calculated for the course of the accident, i.e., 30 days composed of 5 time 
periods. The second column lists the y/Q values presented in Tables 5.11-1-1,7.1-38, 7.1-40, 
7.1-46, and 7.1.55 of the PSEG ER (PSEG 2015-TN4280). PSEG calculated the y/Q values 
listed in those tables using onsite meteorology described in SSAR Section 2.3 (PSEG 2015- 
TN4283). 

The NRC staff reviewed Section 2.9.3 meteorological data used by PSEG and the PSEG 
atmospheric dispersion factors. Based on these reviews, the NRC staff concludes the 


NUREG-2168 


5-102 


November 2015 



Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


atmospheric dispersion factors for the PSEG Site are acceptable for use in evaluating potential 
environmental consequences of postulated DBAs at the ESP Site. 

Table 5-21. Atmospheric Dispersion Factors for PSEG Site Design Basis Accident 
Calculations 


Time Period and Boundary 

X/Q (s/m 3 ) 

0 to 2 hr, or worst 2-hr period, EAB 

1.41 

X 

10- 4 

0 to 2 hr, LPZ 

4.72 

X 

10- 6 

2 to 8 hr, LPZ 

2.30 

X 

10 -6 

8 to 24 hr, LPZ 

1.61 

X 

10- 6 

24 to 96 hr (1 to 4 d), LPZ 

7.51 

X 

10- 7 

96 to 720 hr (4 to 30 d), LPZ 

3.05 

X 

10- 7 

Note: EAB = exclusion area boundary; LPZ = low population zone. 

Source: PSEG 2015-TN4280. 


Table 5-22, Table 5-23, Table 5-24, and Table 5-25 list the set of DBAs considered by PSEG for 
the four different reactor technologies and present estimates of the environmental 
consequences of each accident in terms of total effective dose equivalent (TEDE). TEDE is 
estimated by the sum of the committed effective dose equivalent from inhalation and the deep 
dose equivalent from external exposure. Table 5-22 is for the US-APWR design, and these 
values are from Table 7.1-39 of the PSEG ER (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Table 5-23 is for the U.S. 
EPR, and these values are from Table 7.1-56 of the PSEG ER (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 

Table 5-24 is for the AP1000 (one unit), and these values are from Tables 7.1-47 through 7.1-54 
of the PSEG ER (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Finally, Table 5-25 is for the ABWR, and these values 
are from Tables 7.1-41 through 7.1-45 of the PSEG ER (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 


Table 5-22. Design Basis Accident Doses for the US-APWR 



Standard 


TEDE in rem (a) 



Review Plan 




Review 

Accident 

Section (b) 

EAB 

LPZ 

Criterion 

Main steam line break 

15.1.5 





Pre-existing iodine spike 


5.36 x 10- 2 

1.32 x 

10“ 3 

25 (c) 

Accident-initiated iodine spike 

Steam generator rupture 

15.6.3 

9.02 x 10- 2 

3.36 x 

io- 3 

2.5 <d) 

Pre-existing iodine spike 


1.02 x 10° 

X 

o 

°o 

T— 

10- 2 

25 (c) 

Accident-initiated iodine spike 


2.71 x io- 1 

5.16 x 

io- 3 

2.5 <d) 

Loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) 

15.6.5 

3.67 x 10° 

1.56 x 

IO" 1 

25< c ) 

Rod ejection 

15.4.8 

1.44 x 10° 

5.40 x 

IO" 2 

6.25 (d) 

Reactor coolant pump rotor seizure 
(locked rotor) 

15.3.3 

1.38 x 10- 1 

8.40 x 

IO" 3 

2.5 (d) 

Failure of small lines carrying primary 
coolant outside containment 

15.6.2 

4.23 x 10" 1 

7.20 x 

io- 3 

2.5 (d) 

Fuel handling 

15.7.4 

9.31 x 10" 1 

1.68 x 

IO" 2 

6.25 (d) 

(a) To convert rem to Sv, divide by 100. 

(b) Source: NUREG-0800 (NRC 2007-TN3036). 

(c) 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1) (TN249) and 10 CFR 100.21 (TN282) criteria. 

(d) Standard Review Plan criterion. 

Source: PSEG 2015-TN4280. 


November 2015 


5-103 


NUREG-2168 
















Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Table 5-23. Design Basis Accident Doses for the U.S. EPR 


Accident 

Standard 
Review Plan 
Section (b) 

EAB 

TEDE in rem< a > 

LPZ 

Review 

Criterion 

Main steam line break 

Pre-existing iodine spike 

15.1.5 

2.82 x 10- 2 

1.70 x 10“ 3 

25< c > 

Accident-initiated iodine spike 


4.23 x 10- 2 

3.40 x 10“ 3 

2 .5 (d > 

Fuel rod clad failure 


7.47 x icr 1 

4.42 x 10-2 

25 (d) 

Fuel overheat 


8.18 x 10- 1 

4.76 x 10-2 

25 (d) 

Steam generator rupture 

Pre-existing iodine spike 

15.6.3 

1.55 x 10- 1 

5.10 x 10“ 3 

25< c > 

Accident-initiated iodine spike 


9.87 x 10- 2 

8.50 x 10“ 3 

2.5 (d) 

Loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) 

15.6.5 

1.72 x 10"° 

1.89 x 10" 1 

25 (c) 

Rod ejection 

15.4.8 

8.04 x 10- 1 

5.95 x 10-2 

6.25 (d) 

Reactor coolant pump rotor seizure 

15.3.3 

3.24 x 10- 1 

1.53 x 10-2 

2.5 (d) 

(locked rotor) 

Failure of small lines carrying primary 

15.6.2 

2.54 x 10- 1 

5.10 x 10- 3 

2.5(d) 

coolant outside containment 

Fuel handling 

15.7.4 

7.90 x 10- 1 

1.70 x IQ- 2 

6.25( d ) 

(a) To convert rem to Sv, divide by 100. 

(b) Source: NUREG-0800 (NRC 2007-TN3036). 

(c) 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1) (TN249) and 10 CFR 100.21 (TN282) criteria. 

(d) Standard Review Plan criterion. 




Source: PSEG 2015-TN4280. 


Table 5-24. Design Basis Accident Doses for the API 000 Reactor 


Standard 


TEDE in rem (a) 



Review Plan 



Review 

Accident 

Section (b) 

EAB 

LPZ 

Criterion 

Main steam line break 

15.1.5 




Pre-existing iodine spike 


1.76 x 10- 1 

3.81 x io- 3 

25 (c) 

Accident-initiated iodine spike 

Steam generator rupture 

15.6.3 

1.94 x 10" 1 

9.67 x 10“ 3 

2.5 ( d) 

Pre-existing iodine spike 


3.87 x icr 1 

6.16 x IO” 3 

25 (c) 

Accident-initiated iodine spike 


1.94 x 10- 1 

3.99 x 10- 3 

2.5(d) 

Loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) 

15.6.5 

6.71 x io-° 

2.31 x io- 1 

25 (c > 

Rod ejection 

15.4.8 

6.34 x 10- 1 

2.72 x io- 2 

6.25(d) 

Reactor coolant pump rotor seizure 
(locked rotor) - No feedwater 

15.3.3 

1.41 x 10- 1 

1.95 x IO” 3 

2.5(d) 

Feedwater available 

15.3.3 

1.06 xIO" 1 

3.97 xIO" 3 

2.5(d) 

Failure of small lines carrying primary 
coolant outside containment 

15.6.2 

3.70 x IQ- 1 

5.10 x io- 3 

2.5(d) 

Fuel handling 

15.7.4 

to 

_X 

cn 

X 

o 

1 

1.72 x IQ- 2 

6.25(d) 


(a) To convert rem to Sv, divide by 100. 

(b) Source: NUREG-0800 (NRC 2007-TN3036). 

(c) 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1) (TN249) and 10 CFR 100.21 (TN282) criteria. 

(d) Standard Review Plan criterion. 

Source: PSEG 2015-TN4280. 


NUREG-2168 


5-104 


November 2015 














Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Table 5-25. Design Basis Accident Doses for ABWR 



Standard 


TEDE in rem (a)(b) 


Accident Considered 

Review Plan 
Section (c) 

EAB 

LPZ 

Review 

criteria 

Failure of Small Lines Carrying Primary 
Coolant Outside Containment^ 

15.6.2 

2.45 x 10~ 2 


2.5 

LOCA 

15.6.5 

1.1 

0.33 

25 

Fuel Handling Accident ,d) 

15.7.4 

0.39 


6.25 

Main Steamline Break - Case 1 (d)(e) 

15.6.4 

1.44 x io- 2 


2.5 

Main Steamline Break - Case 2 (d)(el 

15.6.4 

0.292 


25 


(a) To convert rem to Sv, divide by 100. 

(b) TEDE dose in rems converted from ER Table 7.1-41 (PSEG 2015-TN4280) using weighting factors from 
10 CFR 20.1003 (TN283). 

(c) Source: NUREG-0800 (NRC 2007-TN3036). 

(d) The dose is calculated for the maximum 2-hour EAB meteorology only, based on the design control document 
(DCD). 

(e) The level of activity is consistent with an off-gas release rate of 3.7 GBq/s for Case 1 and 14.8 GBq/s for 
Case 2, referenced to a 30-minute decay. The iodine concentrations are also different for each case. 

Source: PSEG 2015-TN4280. 


Dose conversion factors from Federal Guidance Report 11 (Eckerman et al. 1988-TN68) were 
used to calculate the committed effective dose equivalent. Similarly, dose conversion factors 
from Federal Guidance Report 12 (Eckerman and Ryman 1993-TN8) were used to calculate the 
deep dose equivalent. 

The Commission has determined that the ABWR meets the TEDE dose criteria of 10 CFR 50.34 
(10 CFR Part 52, Appendix A [TN251]; 10 CFR Part 50-TN249). Equivalent TEDE values have 
been estimated for ABWR from doses reported by the applicant in its ER by multiplying the 
thyroid dose by a factor of 0.03 (the organ weighting factor for the thyroid) and adding the 
product to the whole body dose. The doses are also converted to rems from the original 
reported values in sieverts (Sv). 

The NRC staff reviewed the PSEG selection of DBAs for each reactor design by comparing the 
accidents listed in the application with DBAs considered in the latest respective DCD version 
released. Although some enhancements are in progress with these design certification 
documents, no significant changes in information pertaining to DBAs are anticipated that would 
alter the conclusions presented in this section. The US-APWR DCD is Rev. 1 (MHI 2008- 
TN3169); the API000 DCD is Rev. 17 (Westinghouse 2008-TN496); the U.S. EPR DCD is Rev. 
0 (AREVA 2007-TN1921); and the ABWR is Rev. 4 (GE 1997-TN2767). The API 000 final 
design certification was based on DCD Revision 19 (Westinghouse 2011-TN261), and the DBAs 
in PSEG’s ER for the API 000 (i.e., DCD Rev. 17) are the same. DBAs in the ER are the same 
as those considered in the design certification; therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the set of 
DBAs is appropriate. In addition, the NRC staff reviewed the calculation of the site-specific 
consequences of DBAs and found the results of the calculations to be acceptable. 

There are no environmental criteria related to the potential consequences of DBAs. 
Consequently, the review criteria used in the NRC staffs safety review of DBA doses are 
included in Table 5-22, Table 5-23, Table 5-24, and Table 5-25 to illustrate the magnitude of the 


November 2015 


5-105 


NUREG-2168 








Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


calculated environmental consequences (TEDE doses). In all cases, the calculated TEDE 
values are considerably smaller than the TEDE doses used as safety review criteria. 
Considering the magnitude of the doses presented in Table 5-22, Table 5-23, Table 5-24 and 
Table 5-25, the NRC staff concludes the potential environmental impacts of design basis 
accidents for the selected reactor designs at the PSEG Site are SMALL. 

NRC staff reviewed PSEG DBA analysis and PSEG Site-specific data in PSEG ER for the four 
different reactor technologies under consideration and found them to be appropriate and 
acceptable. The site-specific analysis results demonstrate that all US-APWR, API000, 

U.S. EPR, and ABWR accident doses meet the site acceptance criteria of 10 CFR 50.34 
(TN249). 

The results indicate the environmental risks associated with DBAs for any of the four reactor 
technologies considered would be SMALL. On this basis, the NRC staff concludes that the 
environmental consequences of DBAs at the PSEG Site would be of SMALL significance for 
any of the four reactor technologies considered. 

5.11.2 Severe Accidents 

In its ER (PSEG 2015-TN4280), PSEG considers the potential consequences of severe 
accidents for four different reactor technologies at the PSEG Site: ABWR (4,300 MW(t)), 

API000 (two units), U.S. EPR, and US-APWR. Three pathways are considered: (1) the 
atmospheric pathway, in which radioactive material is released to the air; (2) the surface-water 
pathway, in which airborne radioactive material falls out on open bodies of water; and (3) the 
groundwater pathway, in which groundwater is contaminated by a basemat melt-through with 
subsequent contamination of surface water by the groundwater. 

Because the PPE does not include source terms for severe accidents, PSEG bases its 
evaluation of the potential environmental consequences for the atmospheric and surface water 
ingestion pathways on the results of the MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System 
(MACCS2) computer code version 1.13.1 (Chanin and Young 1998-TN66) using source term 
information from the four reactor technologies and site-specific meteorological, population, and 
land-use data. 

The MACCS computer code (Chanin et al. 1990-TN2056; Jow et al. 1990-TN526) was 
developed to evaluate the potential offsite consequences of severe accidents for the sites 
covered by NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990-TN525). MACCS2 is the version of MACCS employed in 
these calculations (Chanin and Young 1998-TN66). The MACCS and MACCS2 codes evaluate 
the consequences of atmospheric releases of material following a severe accident. The 
pathways modeled include exposure to the passing plume, exposure to material deposited on 
the ground and skin, inhalation of material in the passing plume and resuspended from the 
ground, and ingestion of contaminated food and surface water. The primary enhancements in 
MACCS2 are that MACCS2 has (1) a flexible emergency-response model, (2) an expanded 
library of radionuclides, and (3) a semidynamic food-chain model (Chanin and Young 1998- 
TN66). 


NUREG-2168 


5-106 


November 2015 



Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


In response to an NRC request for additional information, PSEG provided the NRC with copies 
of the input and output files for the MACC2 computer runs (PSEG 2012-TN2462). NRC staff 
reviewed the input and output files, ran independent confirmatory calculations with the MACCS2 
code, and concurred with the PSEG results. 

Environmental consequences of some potential surface-water pathways (e.g., swimming and 
fishing) are not evaluated by MACCS2. PSEG relied on generic analyses in the Generic 
Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants , NU REG-1437 
(NRC 2013-TN2654) for these pathways. Similarly, the MACCS2 code does not address the 
potential environmental consequences of the groundwater pathway. 

Three types of severe accident consequences were assessed: (1) human health, (2) economic 
costs, and (3) land area affected by contamination. Human health effects are expressed in 
terms of the number of cancers that might be expected if a severe accident were to occur. 

These effects are directly related to the cumulative radiation dose received by the general 
population. MACCS2 estimates both early fatalities and latent cancer fatalities. Early fatalities 
are related to high doses or dose rates and can be expected to occur within a year of exposure 
(Jow et al. 1990-TN526). Latent cancer fatalities are related to exposure of a large number of 
people to low doses and dose rates and can be expected to occur after a latent period of 
several (2 to 15) years. 

Population health-risk estimates are based on the population distribution within a 50-mi radius of 
the site. Economic costs of a severe accident include costs associated with short-term 
relocation of people; decontamination of property and equipment; interdiction of food supplies, 
land and equipment use; and condemnation of property. The affected land area is a measure of 
the areal extent of the residual contamination following a severe accident. Farmland 
decontamination is an estimate of the area that has an average whole body dose rate for the 
4-year period following the release that would be greater than 0.005 Sv/yr (0.5 rem/yr) if not 
reduced by decontamination and that would have a dose rate following decontamination of less 
than 0.005 Sv/yr (0.5 rem/yr). Decontaminated land is not necessarily suitable for farming. 

Risk is the product of the frequency and consequences of an accident. For example, the 
probability of a severe accident (also called core damage frequency) without loss of 
containment for a US-APWR (Release Category RC6) is estimated to be 1.1 * 10 -6 per 
reactor-year (Ryr) for internal events. The cumulative population dose associated with a severe 
accident without loss of containment at the PSEG Site is calculated to be 16.9 person-Sv 
(1,690 person-rem). The population dose risk for this release class is the product of 1.1 * lO^ 6 
Ryr 1 and 16.9 person-Sv (1,690 person-rem), which equals 1.86 * 10~ 5 person-Sv Ryr 1 
(1.86 x 10~ 3 person-rem Ryr 1 ). These values are shown in Table 5-26. 

Core damage frequency estimates are made using well developed methods that have been 
updated based on investigation of the accident at Three Mile Island, Unit 2, and research 
following the accident. Core damage frequency estimation methods used to generate the 
estimates presented in this EIS are described in NUREG-1150, Severe Accident Risk: An 
Assessment for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants (NRC 1990-TN525). These methods explicitly 
consider both pre-accident and post-accident human errors. The core damage frequencies 
listed in this EIS are those estimated for the US-APWR, API 000 reactor, U.S. EPR, and ABWR 


November 2015 


5-107 


NUREG-2168 



Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


designs as part of the design certification process. The following sections discuss estimated 
risks associated with the air, surface water, and groundwater pathways. The risks presented in 
the following tables are risks per year of reactor operation. 

5.7 1.2 .7 Air Pathway 

The MACCS2 code directly estimates consequences associated with releases to the air 
pathway. The results of the MACCS2 runs (PSEG 2015-TN4280) for the four reactor 
technologies are presented in Table 5-26, Table 5-27, Table 5-28, and Table 5-29. For the 
API 000 (Table 5-27), values for one unit have been calculated. Table 5-28 shows the 
environmental risks for the U.S. EPR. The estimated risks for the US-APWR (Table 5-26) are 
the largest of the four reactor technologies considered, and the estimated risks for ABWR 
(Table 5-29) are the lowest. The US-APWR has the largest values for all of the categories of 
the tables: core damage frequency, population dose, early fatalities and latent cancer fatalities, 
cost, farm land decontamination, and population dose from water ingestion. Therefore, US- 
APWR results are bounding for the four reactor technologies considered. 

The core damage frequencies given in the prior tables include internally initiated accident 
sequences. Internally initiated accident sequences include sequences that are initiated by 
human error, equipment failures, loss of offsite power, etc. It should be noted that the core 
damage frequencies cited by PSEG for the U.S. EPR and US-APWR are those from the Design 
Certification/Control Document and Environmental Report submitted as part of the application 
for certification of the U.S. EPR (AREVA 2007-TN1921) and the US-APWR (MHI 2008-TN3169) 
reactor designs. The NRC staff has not finished its evaluation of the core damage frequencies. 
Consequently, core damage frequencies are subject to change as the design certification review 
continues. Nevertheless, core damage frequencies in these tables are the values available at 
the time PSEG ER was prepared. 

Table 5-26, Table 5-27, Table 5-28, and Table 5-29 show the probability-weighted 
consequences (i.e., risks) of severe accidents are small for all risk categories considered for a 
US-APWR, an API000, a U.S. EPR, and an ABWR located on the PSEG Site. For perspective, 
Table 5-30 and Table 5-31 compare the health risks from severe accidents for a US-APWR, one 
API 000, a U.S. EPR, and an ABWR at the PSEG Site with the risks for current-generation 
reactors at various sites. 

In Table 5-30, the health risks estimated for a US-APWR, an AP1000, a U.S. EPR, and an 
ABWR at the PSEG Site are compared with health-risk estimates for the five reactors 
considered in NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990-TN525). Although risks associated with both internally 
and externally initiated events were considered for the Peach Bottom and Surry reactors in 
NUREG-1150, only risks associated with internally initiated events are presented in Table 5-30. 
The resulting health risks for a new reactor or reactors at the PSEG Site are generally lower 
than the risks associated with current-generation reactors presented in NUREG-1150. 


NUREG-2168 


5-108 


November 2015 






Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


a> 

c n 

O 

LU 

CO 

Q_ 

<U 

SZ 

+-> 

■*-> 

♦-> 

c 

a> 

'o 

o 

< 

a 

L_ 

0 ) 

> 

0 ) 

CO 

a: 

£ 

CL 

< 

Z> 

TO 

E 

o 


</> 

(/) 

a 

"ro 

*-> 

c 

o 

E 

c 

o 

L. 

> 

c 

LU 


CO 

CM 

in 

-Q 

ro 


a> 

<A 

O L. 

Q ® 
c « -- 

.2 5 tS > 

•t; c a w 

ro c o) c 


c > 
o CT 


& 5 

O 
QL 


o c 


o 

CO 

k. 

0) 

a 


c 

o 


-O X ^ 

T 

■y 

CO 

M’ 

CO 


r> 

C CO b 

co c i- 

J •— >« 

o 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

T “ 

T— 

T— 

T— 

T “ 

T_ 

T ” 

c E K 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

i 2 co 

CO C X 
L. O “ 

CO 

03 

00 

CO 

LO 

T— 


o 

o 

o 

p 

CO 

CO 

CO 

03 

CM 

CM 


CO 

CO 



L 

>N 

(T 

co 

0) 

"to 

to 


u 

0 

Q 


£ L 

•*-* “ 
co > 

o a: 

o ** 


*- Q) 

<D o 
** )z. 
TO C 
_l ro 
O 



CM 

in 

O) 

CD 




*- 

r 


*1" 


o 

u 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

_> 

T— 

T— 

T— 

T— 



k. 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

TO 


CO 


CD 

o 

o 

LU 

in 

p 

CM 

O 

o 

o 


CM 


T 





<u 

O) >, 

TO O 

1 O' 

2 3 L 
° CT ^ 

o o H 

k_ l_ ■— 

O LL 
U 


u 

(A 

O 

Q 


<u ? c _ 

(A o ® CA 
® O) "2 <A 

o 0 0 TO 

5 IS £ O 

^ u < 


exp 


m 

ID 

CD 

03 

IT) 

o 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

t— 

T~ 

T— 

t— 

X— 



X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

CX3 

CM 

CD 

03 

03 

LO 


03 

•<— 


CD 

CO 

CM 

r- 

03 

h-’ 

CD 

CO 

00 


00 


CM 

CO 

CO 

60 


o 

o 


o 

co 

O 


O 

CD 

03 

CM 

CO 

in 


CM 

O 


cm" 

60 

T— 

6 D 

in 

60 

60 


60 


m 

I 

m 

1 


m 

•'T 

*Y 

T 

k_ 

TO 

o 

O 

o 

O 

O 

o 

o 

0 

r— 

X— 

X— 

x— 

x— 



> 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

TO 

CM 

o 

CD 

co 

LO 

h- 

CO 

_C 

CD 


p 

in 

co 

p 

CO 

JZ 






co 

I s - 

> 


CM 


o 

_TO 

t/3 

k. 

0 

Q. 

L 

>. 

O 

X 

O 

X 

i 

O 

X 

o 

X 

1 

o 

X 

o 

X 

o 

X 

3 


Q£ 

co 

CO 

co 


LO 

CD 

in 

Q. 

O 

CL 

0 
t n 

o 

> 

to 

03 

03 

CM 

CM 

LO 

CD 

CO 

CM 

CO 

- 


i 

o 

i 

o 

i 

O 

O 

o 

O 

o 

o 

X— 

X— 

x— 

x— 

T— 

T— 

X“ 

CM 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

O 

in 

X— 

o 

x— 

in 


CM 

LU 

h- 

CM 

CM 


CD 



CD 


CO 

CO 

03 

Q. 

> 

-Q 

tz 

0 

E 

c 

TO 

c 

o 

O 


0 

_Q 

3 

— TD 

2 ° 
to -2 

i- ID 
0 C 
c T 
0 

cn 2 

if 

03 — 
1/5 -a 
i- c 
a/ co 

co 2" 
a> h- 
2*0 


ID 

i_ 

3 

<D ^ 
cn ro 


co 


C/3 


E 
cn a/ 

T3 i- 

0 2 

>r CL 
O 3 

o c: 


TO 

I O 

TO -jz 

td _ro 
0 o 

o .s 

o *- 

u. C 
0) CD 


E 

c 
‘eg 
c 
o 

C/3 O 


CO 

IT 

I- 

O 


cu co 
o § 

2 I 

0) 

D CO 
= 0) 
-c 

d) "o 

k_ 

Z) W 
CA W 
CA O 
ID ~ 

a5 ® 

— CD 

C cn 

CD CO 

E E 

C co 
CO "D 

c ® 
° O 
O o 


a 

1 °1 

ll = 

O -a S 

F c/3 
0 § TO 

2 o > 


0 


c 

o TD 

*55 £ 
o ft 


0 


TO 


c o 

TO 

CD o 

o 55 

i- CD 
T3 *- 
— >» i- 

c x; (D 

1 c ^ 

2 T3 to 
CO _3 .3 
C <-> I- 

o .E o 

° - CD 

>. Ifl ^ 
-C -o O 
CO CO QJ 
LU £> JD 


CL 
X 
CD _2 

E ffl 

cn 

2 cd cn 

Z So E 

CD 0) CO 
CA > d) 

CA !_ r 
CD O „ 
^ o C 
X CO CD 

CD P E 
c 

-Q CO 
O 

E 


d) 

cn ro 
c CD 

1 ^ 

u C0 

•- CD 


c 

TO 


C 

o 

o 

T5 

0 


0 o 
!= 0 

•5 £ 

•*- Q 

C d) 
CD > 

E ° 

.£ c 
co d> 

" E 

c 

CO 


c E E 


cn — 
c co 
o E 

c ® 

o £ 
co 

to 

5 "a 

-Q c 

E w 

8 <D 
C 3 

<D c= 

03 

o _ 

-O 0 

2 to 
^ to 

-C d) 

CD 

^2 0) 


0 

TO 

i_ 

.1-® 
w O) 
c*— CA 

x: a; 

O T3 


x: 

5 


.b £: o 


o ^ 
= co 2 

CO d) r 
"O i- £ 

<D m — 
OcS ® 

O TO C 


c 
0 
E 
c 

TO 
C 

o _ 
O o 

ra •O 

iS o 

2 Q. 


TO 

TD 

0 

to 

TO 

_0 

0 

L— 

0 

k. 

TO 

to 


O 

cr 


CM 

co 


LO 

CD 

o 

O 

o 

O 

O 

tr 

cr 

cr 

cr 

cr 


CD 

CM 

m 


o 

03 

03 


to 


TO 

0 


TD 

0 

TO 

O 

o 

0 

0 

TO 

to 

to 

o 

o 


m TO 
TO 0 0 


0 


> TD 
O 


5^0 

°T- 

§ i % 

O > o 

0- CD -O 

S “ 2= 

d3 O 

c£ 10 n 

^ o .2 

a> ! 
5 E 

c CD 
CD T3 

« 8 
TO ° 
TD 
C 


0 


TO 


O 

00 

CM 


LO 


3 c 

0 3 0 

o O 
o O 
2 O "O 
TD 2 ft 
2 X3 c 
O d) ~ 
CD -5= r-* 
CD. u E 

X ® .2 

CD Q- 
x co 
CD d) C 

C ® E 

8^8 § 
>"0 0 

co -s ® 
il CO TD 
03 X _ 
C ■" d) 
03 CA “ 

cn ® g- 
" co CD 
2 *- Q_ 

■£ cd 

® ° s 

2 ID ° 

5 8 1 

O 1 E 

8 J a5 


>.o 
X o 

T3 ‘7 

2 £ _ 

Q- >, o O x 

w — x CD CA 

2 c -- ro X 

co c 03 ~ 

T3 - o *- 5 

o £ ■§ ! © 

"8 § — 2 ‘5 

8 £ £ 2 o 

2 » 03 CA 
CD CL 2 b: CO 

m 2 = ^ CA 

S >2 S g 

s“fi|8 

TO C 0 TO (/) 

k_ A> 


> 

-O 


> 

CO 

ID 

O 

p 

O 

c 

TO 

n. 

to 

to 

0 


TD 

0 

O 

D 

TD 

0 

L— 

0 

JD 

C 

TO 

O 

D 

JD 


> 

C/) 

ID 

O 

O 


to 

TD 

0 

0 

O 

X 

0 

c 

0 

“O 

o 

o 

TO 

0 

x: 

03 

c 

5 

o 


T3 

o 

L_ 

0 

Q. 

L_ 

TO 

0 

> 


0 

n 

o 

0 

TO 

L— 

0 

to 

O 

TD 

> 

TD 

O 

JD 

_0 

O 

JZ 

0 

03 

TO 

S' ® 

S ro 

E X 


0 to TO 
*“ 0 


ro -g 

D 


£ (D W i- 3 

c 0-2 ® o 

X — c E 

W 03 CO co ^ 

® -be o -rb 


J c 

CO O 
> 13 


2 g — 

^ ® to 
o 


u. 

— o co co o 
< h- LU _J O 


O <D 

£ 03 
? -C 

" 5 

CO ® 

® 8 
5 CA 

o — 

—> -X 
CA CO 

2 ‘~ 
GOO 
03 C O 
3 = CO CD 
CD _l T 3 


CO X O TD CD 


November 2015 


5-109 


NUREG-2168 








Table 5-27. Environmental Risks from an API000 Reactor Severe Accident at the PSEG Site 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


0) 

W 

O l. 

o ® 


3 

a ■ 

o 

a 


c 

0 

M _ 

C— _Q 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CNJ 


m 

VO 

ro X 
X"- 

1 

0 

0 

l 

O 

0 

O 

O 

O 

— L 

T— 

T— 

T— 



T— 


c >> 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

0 a: 

CNJ 

CO 

00 

fs*. 

CM 

LO 

TT 


CO 

LO 

CO 

03 

CO 

O 

CM 


CN 

▼- 

oj 

LO 

CM 


T“ 

03 









"O 

c 

ro 

_J 

E 

u. 

CD 


£ 

c 

o 


L 

a 

in 

0) 


SL 

E a 

.2 ro 
c £ 
O “ 
o 

V 

Q 


- L 
w >* 
o o' 
O 


c ' 5 - 

C Q> 
O 

ro c 

_l «5 

o 


3 

CL 

o 

a. 


ro 

LU 


C 

O £ 
</) ■—- 

ro L 
a >> 
'-'o: 
ro ^ 
</) > 
O M 
Q 


ro 

O) 

ro 

E 

ro 

Q 

a> 

L. 

o 

o 


>. 
o S 
c ^ 

3 L 

S’ a 


o 

(/> 

ro 

O 


ro >> c _ 

(/) O 7) 

ro cttj </> 
i? ro o 

£ « 3 o 

^ o <, 


T 

T 

vO 

1 

co 

1 

m 

co 

CO 

1 

O) 

03 

0 

0 

O 

O 

O 

O 

0 

T— 


t— 

T— 

t— 

T— 

T“ 

T— 


X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

"to 

03 

LO 

0 

CO 

03 

CO 

CO 

0 

CO 

CM 

LO 

co 


CM 

CO 

CM 

CO 


CO 

LO 


T- 

r\ 


CO 


__ 

CM 

LO 

CO 

0 

CO 

CM 

h- 

CO 

T— 

CM 

CO 

CM 

CO 

CM 

CO 

CD 

O 

OO 

co 

CO 

CO 

CO 

T— 

CO 


CO 

m 

1 


O 


m 

m 

O 

O 

O 

O 

O 

O 

O 

T— 

■* — 

▼" 


▼” 

t— 


X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 


CM 

LO 

CM 

CO 

O 

00 

O 


03 

CO 


03 

I s - 

T— 

T— 

CO 

r^' 

CO 

CO 

00 






n 

CO 


O 




T 

0 

l 

O 


t — 




T — 

T - 

O 

X 

O 

0 

0 

X 

X 


T- 




CO 

h- 


I-. 




CO 

Tf 


T— 




CO 

06 

m 

1 


in 

°? 

m 

l 

00 

1 

co 

O 

O 

O 

0 

O 

0 

O 

T— 


T— 

T— 

■*“ 

T— 


X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

CM 

03 

T— 


0 

0 

03 

CO 

03 

O 

0 



I s - 

CM 

CM 

T— 

CM 

10 

T— 

T” 


1 

CD 

| 

0 

co 

O) 

CO 

1 

O 

O 

1 

0 

O 

O 

O 

O 

T— 

T ~ 



T— 

' T— 


X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

T— 

r- 

03 

LO 

CO 

10 

0 

CM 


CO 


CO 

0 


CM 

h- 

T- 

CO 



CNI 


c 

ro 

E 

c 

ro 

c 

o 

o 

o 

03 


0 

L_ 

_D 

0 c 

I E 

c 
’to 
c 
o 
o 


0 

k_ 

J3 

0 TO 


^TO 

C 

0 

E 

c 

‘to 

c 

o 

a 

> 

L_ 

TO 

LU 


_D 

£ 

C 

0 

E 

c 

TO 

C 

O 

O 

0 

TO 


C 

o 


o 

0 

c 

0 

E 

_c 

’to 

c 

o 


0 

0 

TO 

Q. 

> 

_D 

C 

0 

E 

c 

TO 

C 

o 


LU _ 
M Li- LL 

y o o 


± _J O O H 


L- _ CL 
O O CD 


CO 

CM 

LO 


TO 
0 
JZ 

_c 

I 

~o 

0 

TO 

'o 
O 

if) 
if) 
TO 

• 0 
CO 

i_ CO 
TO O 
0 O 

^ 0 


O S 


3 2 « 
w ro ro 
S > ° 
g- ro -o 

a; o 
.c 


■a 

o 

o >- 
u. ro 
ro °- 
ro ~ 

^n ^ 

_ ro 
03 -s 
c -S 
!c ro 


g ro 
Z « 

3 ro 
o i- 
o => 

° 8 

O o 

O 


T3 
0 
O 

0 — 
Q_ O 

X g 

0 Q. 


"O 

0 


O 

oo 

CM 

o- 


m 

T— 

O 

CM 

0 

LU 

C/) 

CL 

X o 

T3 

ro 


ro a} 

■° 0 

c _Q 

TO 

o c: 
^ o 

2 TO 

0 -c 
c ^ 
0 co 
cn 0 

TO u- 

-C 


0 

0 

o 

T3 


c 

o 

TO 

c 

E 

0 

"O 

c 

o 

o 

T3 

C 

TO 

C 

o 

u 

"O 

L_ 

0 

c 

c 

o 

TO 

c 

E 

TO 

C 

O 

O 

0 

“D 

_0 

CL 

o 

0 

CL 


TO i- .5=i 


CO 
0 
CO 

_ o _ 

•9-^ -o 

x: 0 
fro 
ro 

o >- 

w 

■a ro 
ro x 


>. 

_ x 
x 

xx~ 

3 " 

CO _ 

iS | 
ro c 

c E 

o ro 

T3 c 

ro o 
<« co 
ro i- 
x ro 

ro “■ 
ro 2 
ro > 

5 W 

ro c 
o 
ro co 

•£ ro 

c °- 

s| 

ro c 
ro o 

>• o _ ^ 
= o ro "co 
< I— LU -i 


ro 
o 
o 
ro 

L_ 

E 

k_ 

0 
•*—> 

tr 
o 

XI 
if) 

x= 

1 

■D 

0 

^ ”5 


> 

_Q 

> 

> 

CO 

LO 

o 

o 

o 

C 

TO 

_C 

0 

0 

0 


"O 

0 

o 

13 

"O 

0 

L_ 

0 

X3 

C 

TO 

O 

D 

X3 

> 

> 

O) 

LO 

o 

o 


if) 

~o 

0 

0 

o 

X 

0 

C 

0 

~o 

o 

o 

TO 

0 

x: 

03 

c 

o 


“O 

o 

0 

CL 

l_ 

TO 

0 


0 

x: 


o — 
c 
o 


— TO 73 CO 

0 - 
L_ 

if) 

0 


TO O 


s 8 

TO ^ 
0 "TO 
TO ,2 

0 L_ 
0 0 
x: O 
— c 
2 TO 
TO 0 

ii 


CNJ 

(0 iQ 

0 Z 

TO h- 

J2 6 

0 03 
O 03 
O t— 
co _■ 
0 TO 
"O ^ 
3 0 

-g§ 

^ 3 

if) 

c 0 
^ o 
8^ 
O ro 


ro 

ro 

k_ 

0 

0 

o 

"O 

>N 

X3 

O 

X 3 

_0 

O 


0 

03 

TO 

L_ 

0 

> 

TO 


TO C 
0 O 

TO 

CO C 

^ E 

CO 0 

^ c 
■O o 
c o 
TO 0 
—I T3 


TO D O D 0 


NUREG-2168 


5-110 


November 2015 








Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


a? 

co 

0 

LU 

CO 

0. 

0 

.C 

re 

c 

<D 

'o 

o 

< 

0 

L_ 

03 

> 

03 

CO 

£ 

CL 

LU 

CO 

zi 

re 

E 

o 

k- 

kt- 

C/5 

jt: 

w 

CL 

"re 

*■> 

c 

03 

E 

c 

o 

k_ 

> 

c 

LU 

CO 

CM 

i 

in 

_03 

A 

TO 


0 

1/3 

o 


c « 

.2 $ 


= 2 
Q.*h 
O 
Q. 


c 

o 

1/3 


u 

0 

r^- 


CO 


<D 

CO 

00 


co 

co 

« 

Si 

o 

o 

O 

o 

O 

o 

O 

O 

O 

O 

o 

L 

^— 

▼“ 

t— 

T— 

T- 

T— 

T— 

— 



^— 

c > 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

O X 


CO 

00 

T— 

CM 

00 

T— 

T— 

CO 

co 

Tf 


T— 

r^ 

o 


o 

CM 

CN 

o 

CN 

CO 

in 

® C/3 


CN 


CN 

in 



in 

LO 




03 

c 


■o 

c 

CD 

—I 

E 

k- 

re 


3 

c 

o 

re 

c 

E 

re 

c 

o 

o 

o 

Q 


L 

>s 

X 

re 

D 


lO 

in 

i 


m 

’T 


up 

M- 


in 

n 

O 

O 

O 

O 

O 

o 

O 

o 

o 

O 

O 

T- “ 

T ” 


v 

■>- 


T - 

T“ 

T— 

T— 

T— 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

CO 

T— 

03 

CD 

CD 

r^ 

N- 

03 

03 



CO 


in 

05 

CM 

o 

r^- 

CO 

N- 

CN 

CO 

CN 


in 

r^» 

CO 



Csi 

cd 


CM 


L 


CO 


in 

o 


i/3 >< 


h- 


CO 

CO 

T— 

O X 

co 


CN 

O’ 

in 

CN 

W ** 


cn 

60 

in 


eo 


L 

> 

CT 

1/5 

0 

"to 

— 

to 


c 5 

5 o 
(0 c 
_l to 


> 

w 

(0 

LU 


c 

o 

-3 

to (/) 
3 O 
a Q 
o 
Q. 


> 

°?S 

C — 

O L 

in t 

k. ^ 

0 cr 

Q. 


a? 


>» 

. o - 5 - 

O) c ^ 

CD 0 ^ 
w p 3 L 


c 

o 


o 

in 

0) 

Q 


0 

> 

— 

c 

n 

1/3 

o 

0 


re 

05 


(/) 

o 

0 

0 

• 4 —' 

TO 

o 

o 

(/) 

ss 

X 

(J 

< 

(J 


<p 

O I- 

T “ o 


X 

r-. 

co 

oo 


o x 

CO 

O’ 

iri 


m 

O 


X 

CNI 

O 

c\i 


o 


CO 

00 


I 

o 


^ o 

oo un 


0 

k_ 

_3 

'to 

2 c 
3| O 

i5 ^ 
o 
a> 


o 


c\i 


r^ 

co 


CO 

o 

X 

CD 


CO 

O 


X 

CO 

CO 

CO 


•o 

I 

o 


X 

CD 

iri 


CO 

h- 


CM 

CM 

oo 


co 

o 

X 

CD 

TT 

OO 


l 

o 


X 

in 

^r 

h- 


o 

3 

■O 

0 

L. • 

3 CM 


o 

c" 


X 

CO 

c\i 


"O 

0 0 

-o 


0 

-Q 


O 

O 


0 
E 
c 
're 

c .£ ■“ 
O 03 2 
o 

o 


sz 

— a 

S 03 

S 0 

E Jr 


A! " re 


CO 

0 

c 


c O 
O <d 
O a 


0 

— J5 
c o 
0 cn 

Is 

re 2 
c o 
o = 
O £ 


C/3 — 

= O 


a 


03 

03 

03 


oo 

O 


X 

00 


o 

c 

~d 

0 0 

0 o 

X3 = 

co — 

a B 


X 

o 

03 

CO 


X 

O’ 


h- 


I 

o 


X 

CM 


CM 



o 

CM 

CO 


in 

T- 

CO 

CO 


cn 

oo 

60 

T~ 

lO 

in 

m 


o 

o 

O 

o 

T— 

— 

▼— 

T— 

X 

X 

X 

X 

CO 

05 

r^ 

00 

■»— 

in 

CD 

■»— 




CM 


- 

- 

- 


o 

o 

o 


T— 

T— 

T“ 

o 

X 

X 

X 


05 

05 

03 


CO 

05 

CO 



CO 

in 




n 

1 

o 

o 

o 

O 

4“ 

X— 


T- 

X 

X 

X 

X 

CD 

in 

00 

CO 

CM 

in 


■M; 

csi 

CO 

T— 

CO 

CO 

cn 

o 

1 

o 

O 

1 

o 

o 

T— 

T— 


T— 

X 

X 

X 

X 

o 


CD 

CO 


in 

c\i 

in 


O 

re 
0 

-Q 
0 
re 

Jt3 t/3 J« 


0 


TO 


C 

re 


0 

X3 

3 


O) 9 o 
C -°i2 

1 h 5 


03 

c Q_ 


X) 

2 5 
& «J 


C/3 

CL 


0 


O 

c 

< 

O 

O 


_0 

"ro 

E 


0 

o 


0 

o 


0 

0 

0 



LL 

~ 

0 

c 

OD 

OD 

_C 


E 

c 

c 


E 

c 

c 


E 

c 

E 

E 

c 

'— 

O 

0’ 

o 

0 

C 

o 


're 

"c 

D 

O 

re 

CO 

> 

TO 

're 

c 

dT 

o 

re 

CO 

> 

TO 

're 

c 

0 

— 

£ 

"re 

c 

o 

c 

0 

E 

re 

L_ 

3 

Q. 

E 

re 

3 

5. 

3 

TI 

— 

JD 

JD 

3 

re 

o 

0 

L_ 

Q_ 

o 

0 

L_ 

i_ 

Q_ 

o 

*0 

o 

3 

0 

3 

0 

3 


v_ 

o 

O 

O 

D3 

CO 

O 

D3 

C/D 

O 

S3 

O 

cr 

CO 

X 

CO 

X 

— 

in 

t— 




CD 

co 


•O’ 

•O’ 


CM 

CM 

2 

o 

o 

O 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

O 

o 

io 


CM 

CM 

CO 

CO 

■O’ 

in 

r^- 

1 ^ 

00 

L 

U 

o 

O 

O 

o 

O 

O 

O 

O 

O 

O 

X 

CL 

QC 

DC 

X 

X 

QC 

cr 

cr 

cr 

2 


c 

0 

■o 

o csi 
o co 
to ^ 

— CM 

l- 

o CM 
O t- 

_ o 

O CM 

<n 0 

1/5 lil 

o LU 

— c/3 
ll Q. 

< T3 

O c 

So 
00 
C/5 CN 


c 

£ 

o 


o 

c 

0 

k_ 

03 

CO 

0 


-gP 

2 uS 

CL ZZ 

o ° 

C/3 O 
co LU 
^ C/3 
II CL 
CL >> 
Ll. jO 

Si 

1 & 
% 3 

c is 

— TO 
0 T3 

0 c 

O © 

c -O 
O 0 
o co 

S5 

E 2 

3 TO 

O ® 

O JD 

c 3 
3 0 
o -c 
E 


o 

05 

0 

“ 

o 

C/5 

0 


-X 

0 


CO 

CNI 

IT) 


O 

o> 

05 0 


TO 


TO 

0 


C/5 

0 

"i— 

O 

05 

0 

TO 

O 

0 

0 

TO 

_0 

0 


TO 

0 

~o 

o 

c 

_C/5 

TO 

O 


0 LO 

O O 
“5 

^ CN 
0 ^ 
3 2 

8 2 
g- 0 

0 O 
^ "O 

o 

O 

z. ® 

co °- 

^ c 

*1; 

c -2 

n to 

1 ® 


CO = 


5 ® 

8 3 
O 8 

o O 

T3 2 

•£ T3 

% ® 

a. o 

<D Q. 

0 a; 

■? 0 

° S 

> o 


2 T5 

0 -C 
c 

0 0 
05 0 
— TO 


7 o 
0 o 

^ T- 

^ > 
O JD 

^ Q- 


0 

0 

o 

TD 


0 

0 

(/) 

O 

*o 


0 C 

_0 2 
05 C 

c o 

~ C/5 

| I 

c O 
o ^ 

0 c 

Z o 

O 0 

S 5 - 


0 o 

0 2 

0 n 

o 5 

■° T3 
ZZ 0 

■2> 0 

^ 0 
o >- 
" 0 
T3 0 
0 rr 

JO Id 
2 0 


0 


11 0 

o| 

O ro 

> 


— □. . 2 ; 


0 > 
0 c 
0 o 

0 O 

= 0 o 

< cr i- 


0 
0 
“ ® 

3 0 

-E 
0 ^ro 

TO 

C/5 »_ 
0 0 
O 

— c 

ro TO 


0 0 
LU _l 


0 n O T3 0 


November 2015 


5-111 


NUREG-2168 


(f) Cost risk includes costs associated with short-term relocation of people, decontamination, interdiction, and condemnation. It does not include costs associated with health 
effects (Jow et al. 1990-TN526). 

(g) Land risk is area where the average whole body dose rate for the 4-year period following the accident exceeds 0.005 Sv/yr but can be reduced to less than 0.005 Sv/yr by 
decontamination. 








Table 5 - 29 . Environmental Risks from an ABWR Severe Accident at the PSEG Site 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


0 

C/3 

o 


c « 

.2 £ 


3 2 

Q-i: 

o 

CL 


c 

0 

03 _ 
i- ^ 

CO 


00 

1^ 

1^- 

h- 

| 3 . 

0) 

Q.- 

1 

O 

1 

0 

1 

O 

1 

0 

1 

O 

1 

0 

1 

O 

— L 

T— 


T— 

3 

T— 

T_ 

3 “ 

c >. 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

0 a: 

r^ 


00 

in 

h-. 

T— 

3 f 

S w 

CO 

CO 

CO 

cn 

CO 

co 

O 


T- 


T_ 

CO 

c\i 

CO 


03 

c 


~o 

c 

ro 


ro 


L 

c /3 

.2 

"ro 

03 


C 

o 

n 

E a: 

2 ro 
c -c 
o 
o 

03 

O 


s L 

*-• >- 

t/> >» 

o a: 

o 


c 55 

® o 

03 C 
_l 03 

o 


■a 

_>% 

03 

111 


C 

o 

'■*-> 03 

ro « 

3 9 
a G 
o 
a. 


03 


- o -S- 

«, OIC- 
- 03 a> 7 

3 L 
cr >> 
03 a: 


o 

o 


E 

03 

G 


c 

o 


o 

(/) 

03 

G 


03 cT c S' 
</) o 03 ' 

03 ra "O C/3 
® 03 o ® 


03 


03 


O ® 


O ^ 


< O 


•? 

7 

m 

1 

in 

l 

m 

1 

U) 

1 

0 

O 

0 

O 

O 

0 


3 — 

•< — 

■<- 


T— 

x 0 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 


LO 

CO 

O 

h- 

in 

0 

03 


00 

CO 

03 

T— 

CO 

CM 

CM 

X- 

CD 


CO 

■ t 

CM 

in 

03 


C-. 

LO 

h~ 

CO 


00 

CO 

CM 


cd 

f -3 


T— 

T— 

CM 

T — 

in 

W 

GO 

C 3 

cn 

cn 

GO 

cn 

GO 

cn 


r- 

1 

co 

I s - 

1 

I s - 

1 

•? 

r- 

1 

0 

1 

O 

O 

O 

0 

O 

T— 


T_ 

T “ 

x— 

T— 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

CO 

■ ♦ 

CO 

^r 

CM 

CO 

CD 

N 

CD 

co 



03 


T— 

cri 

X— 

r^. 


o o 


c 

0 

E 

c 

"ro 

c 

o 

o 


>1 ® 

-Q 3 


T3 

0 

$ 

O 


C /3 


C/3 

C/3 

0 


CD 

LO 



°o 

O 

0 

0 

1 

O 

1 

0 

T 

f -3 

T 

0 

T 

0 

X 

3t 

X 

00 

L_J 

X 

x— 

X 

X 

LO 

co 

0 

0 

CT> 

O 

3“ 

csj 


CO 



00 

03 

03 


X 

r— 


o. 

-C 
03 -X 

ro 


"O 

c 

ro 

3 U 

0 o 


O r tr E r 


03 

03 

O 


0 O 

*03 0> 


— - =3 


ro 


c 

ro 

o 

o 

o 


c 

■§ w 

2 ? 
I- < 


< 

o 

O 

_i 

E 

3 

“O 

0 

E 

"ro 

E 

w 


Q. 

3 

J= C3 
03 

tl 

D 3 




I 

o 


X 


> 

in 

CD 

i 5 

0 

m 

in 

m 

in 

<? 2 

1 

O 

1 

O 

1 

O 

l 

O 

l 

O 

1 

O 

c ^ 

X— 

X— 

X— 

X— 

X— 

x— 

3 — 

0 L 
</> E 

L_ ?3 

X 

CD 

X 

00 

X 

CD 

X 

O 

X 

X 

^r 

X 

CO 

a) cr 

X— 

h- 

CD 

x— 

x— 

cp 

00 

a. 

CM 


CO 

CM 

CO 


cri 


i 

o 


CO 

m 


T3 

0 


C 

_ro 
o 
o 
o 

O 0 

?£ w 
O 0 
0 

L_ 

CL 


o 


c 

o 

U_ 

o 

JO 

>. 

JO 

"O d) 

$ M 

_9 03 


( 7 ) .2 

<: 0 
C a) 


cu 


< .2 H 


O 


3- 

CD 

1 — 

00 

03 

03 

03 

0 

0 

0 

C /3 

C /3 

C /3 

C /3 

C /3 

CO 

03 

03 

ro 

03 

O 

O 

O 

O 

O 


CD 

C\l 

LO 


o 

<J> 

cr> co 


03 

0 

jz 


“O 

0 

0 

o 

o 

if) 
if) 
0 
0 
to 
0 o 
0 o 


0 > 


0 LO 


0 

0 

k_ 

o 

O) 

0 

0 

o 

0 

if) 

0 

_0 

0 


0 

0 

~o 

_D 

o 

g » 

xh 0 
CM O 


2 * 
o - 

CM a) 

0 ^ 
UJ ^ 
C/3 0 
0- S? 
■O T_ 
c 


0 
' T3 
3 

5 Z o 

o o c 


■do 

2 w 
0 0 
> O 
0 “O 
0 ^ 


0 

i_ 

D 

0 

O 

CL 

X 

0 

0 

-c 


"D 
n- O 
O 

g 

0 °- 
0 
> 

0 
C 


c 

o 

0 
c 

E 
c 0 

0 T3 
C 


■O 

0 

u 

0 

CL 

X 

0 

0 

-Q 

C 

0 

o 


o 

o 

“O 

c 

0 

c 

o 


0 0 = 


c 
0 
cn 
c 
0 
L_ 
-*—• 

"D 

0 

to 

Q_ 

‘o 

C 

0 


CD 


O ts 
S cn 
0 

r 5 

LO 0 

° I 

O £ 
uj o 
co cj 
a >. 

_Q ±3 

T 3 03 

03 ro 

"q. I 

Q. 5 
3 O 
03 JZ 

ro “ 
ro o 

T 3 C 
C Q 3 

0 ro 
ro 

0 JZ 
0 CD 
-Q 3 

0 2 
JZ 


0 
i_ 
0 
c 
0 
cd 

0 

JZ 

C/5 

0 

CD 

i_ 

0 

if) 

O 

d ■o 
° & 

. 03 

O 

9 - 

JZ 
3 03 

E Z 

o 


§0 

o X3 
O V 

X3 O 
03 . 

5 

03 O 

Q. Z 

x ro 

03 E 

® E 
jo ro 
c c 
ro o 
o o 

m ® 

^ro -o 
03" 

03 -S 
03 Q- 
0 

ro 0) 
*“ Cl 
03 s- 

03 o 

0 ro 

03 O 
03 O 
03 m 


03 


ro £ 2 ■=. 


_03 Csl 
-O 03 

ro ro 

03 O 
■£ 03 
03 

■- ro 

03 u 
03 03 
_C 03 

< > 03 
= 03 

< CC 


> 

0 ? 

c 

o 

CO 


03 V3 
Cl .03 

•c = 
ro ro 

it 

O 0 
H LU 


0 


O 

o 03 

S "C 

T3 ^ 

Q3 03 
5 JZ 
21 

«■§ 

= ro —^ 
ro -rt CD 

ro o JN 

•*- 03 “2 
03 03 Z 

!= ro t— 
03 A 
03 *; 

03 CO CT 3 

.5 o ao 

^ O T- 

ro ro _ 
ro 03 ro 
*•- "D 
>- Z3 Q3 
03 73 ^ 

c - o 
ro v- — 3 
O ro 
■£ C 03 

® 05 £ 

ro o st: 

—I O 03 


JD 

l— 

> 

> 

CD 

LO 

o 

o 

d 

c 

0 

JZ 

0 

0 

0 


■Q 

0 

O 

Z3 

■D 

0 

L_ 

0 

JD 

C 

0 

o 

D 

-Q 

k— 

> 

> 

CD 

LO 

O 

o 


if) 

TD 

0 

0 

O 

X 

0 

c 

0 

“O 

o 

o 

0 

0 

_c 

CD 

c 

£ 

o 


■O 

o 

L. 

0 

Q. 

i_ 

0 

0 

>3 


0 

JZ 

k_ 

o 

0 

0 

L_ 

0 

if) 

O 

"O 

>3 

"O 

o 

JZ) 

_0 

o 

JZ 

0 

CD 

0 

L_ 

0 

> 

0 

0 

x: 

0 

L_ 

0 

JZ 

0 c 
0 o 

k_ ■ — 

ro 0 

if) c 

E 

00 03 
c 

T3 O 
C O 
0 0 
—I "D 


0 JZ) U "D 0 


CD 


NUREG-2168 


5-112 


November 2015 








Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Table 5-30. Comparison of Environmental Risks for a New Nuclear Power Plant at the 
PSEG Site with Risks for Current-Generation Reactors at Five Sites 
Evaluated in NUREG-1150 


50-mi Average Individual 

Core Population Fatalities Ryr 1 Fatality Risk Ryr 1 



Damage 

Frequency 

(Ryr 1 ) 

Dose Risk 
(person-Sv 
Ryr 1 )* 3 ) 

Early 

Latent 

Cancer 

Early 

Latent 

Cancer 

Grand Gulf* b) 

4.0 x 10- 6 

5 x 10" 1 

8 x 10“ 9 

9 x 10- 4 

3 x 10- 11 

3 x IO- 10 

Peach Bottom (b) 

4.5 x 10 -6 

7 x io +0 

2 x 10- 8 

5 x io~ 3 

5 x IO" 11 

4 x IO- 10 

Sequoyah (b) 

5.7 x io~ 5 

1 x io +1 

3 x 10- 5 

1 x io -2 

1 X 10 -6 

1 x 10 -8 

Surry* b) 

4.0 x 10- 5 

5 x 10 +o 

2 x 10 -6 

5 x io- 3 

2 x 10- 8 

2 x 10“ 9 

Zion (b) 

3.4 x 10^ 

5 x 10 +1 

4 x 10" 5 

2 x 10- 2 

9 x 10" 9 

1 x io- 8 

US-APWR (C) at 
PSEG Site 

1.2 x 10- 6 

1.15 x 10- 2 

1.24 x 10- 9 

7.36 x IO" 1 

5.3 x IO" 10 

1.8 x IO" 10 

One AP1000 (C) 
at PSEG Site 

2.4 x 10- 7 

1.79x 10- 3 

8.47 x 10- 13 

8.78 x IO" 5 

2.6 x 10- 11 

2.3 x 10- 11 

U.S. EPR (c) at 
PSEG Site 

5.3 x IO -7 

3.48 x 10- 3 

5.39 x 10- 11 

2.18 x 10- 4 

1.5 x 10- 11 

3.1 x 10" 11 

ABWR (c) at 

1.6 x 10~ 7 

9.83 x 10- 5 

1.15 x 10- 13 

4.41 x IO” 6 

5.7 x 10" 13 

1.5 x IO" 12 


PSEG Site _ 

(a) To convert person-Sv to person-rem, multiply by 100. 

(b) Risks were calculated using the MACCS code and are presented in NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990-TN525). 

(c) Calculated with MACCS2 code using PSEG Site-specific input for internal at power initiating events. 

Source: PSEG 2015-TN4280 and PSEG 2013-TN2909. 


Table 5-31. Comparison of Environmental Risks from Severe Accidents for a US-APWR, 
an AP1000, a U.S. EPR, and an ABWR at the PSEG Site with Risks for 
Current Plants from Operating License Renewal Reviews 

Core Damage Frequency 50-mi Population Dose Risk 
(yr 1 ) (person-Sv Ryr 1 )* 3 ) 


Current Reactor Maximum (b) 

2.4 x io^ 

6.9 x 10- 1 

Current Reactor Mean (b) 

3.1 x 10- 5 

1.5 x 10- 1 

Current Reactor Median (b) 

2.5 x 10“ 5 

1.3 x 10- 1 

Current Reactor Minimum (b) 

CD 

X 

o 

in 

5.5 x 10" 3 

US-APWR (C) at PSEG Site 

1.2 x 10- 6 

1.15 x 10- 2 

AP1000 (C) at PSEG Site 

2.4 x IO” 7 

1.79 x IQ- 3 

U.S. EPR (C > at PSEG Site 

5.31 x IO" 7 

in 

i 

o 

T — 

X 

CO 

CO 

ABWR C at PSEG Site 

1.56 x IQ- 7 

9.83 x 10- 5 


(a) To convert person-Sv to person-rem, multiply by 100. 

(b) Based on MACCS and MACCS2 calculations for over 70 current plants at over 40 sites. 

( c) Calculated with MACCS2 code using PSEG Site-specific input. _ 

Source: PSEG 2015-TN4280. 


November 2015 


5-113 


NUREG-2168 













Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


The last two columns of Table 5-30 provide average individual fatality risk estimates. To put 
these estimates into context for the environmental analysis, the staff compares these estimates 
to the safety goals. The Commission has set safety goals for average individual early fatality 
and latent cancer fatality risks from reactor accidents in the Safety Goal Policy Statement 
(51 FR 30028-TN594). These goals are presented here solely to provide a point of reference 
for the environmental analysis and do not serve the purpose of a safety analysis. The Policy 
Statement expressed the Commission’s policy regarding the acceptance level of radiological 
risk from nuclear power plant operation as follows: 

• Individual members of the public should be provided a level of protection from the 
consequences of nuclear power plant operation such that individuals bear no significant 
additional risk to life and health. 

• Societal risks to life and health from nuclear power plant operation should be comparable to 
or less than the risks of generating electricity by viable competing technologies and should 
not be a significant addition to other societal risks. 

The following quantitative health objectives are used in determining achievement of the safety 
goals: 

• The risk to an average individual in the vicinity of a nuclear power plant of prompt fatalities 
that might result from reactor accidents should not exceed one-tenth of 1 percent 

(0.1 percent) of the sum of prompt fatality risks resulting from other accidents to which 
members of the U.S. population are generally exposed. 

• The risk to the population in the area near a nuclear power plant of cancer fatalities that 
might result from nuclear power plant operation should not exceed one-tenth of 1 percent 
(0.1 percent) of the sum of cancer fatality risks resulting from all other causes. 

These quantitative health objectives are translated into two numerical objectives, as follows: 

• The individual risk of a prompt fatality from all “other accidents to which members of the 
U.S. population are generally exposed,” is about 4.0 * 10~ 4 per year, including a 

1.3 x 10~ 4 per year risk associated with transportation accidents (NSC 2010-TN3240); one- 
tenth of 1 percent of these figures imply that the individual risk of prompt fatality from a 
reactor accident should be less than 4 * 10“ 7 per Ryr. 

• “The sum of cancer fatality risks resulting from all other causes” for an individual is taken to 
be the cancer fatality rate in the U.S., which is about 1 in 500 or 2 * 10~ 3 per year 

(Reed 2007-TN523); one-tenth of 1 percent of this implies that the risk of cancer to the 
population in the area near a nuclear power plant because of its operation should be limited 
to 2 x 10~ 6 per Ryr. 

MACCS2 calculates average individual early fatality and latent cancer fatality risks. The 
average individual early fatality risk is calculated using the population distribution within 1 mi of 
the site boundary. The average individual latent cancer fatality risk is calculated using the 
population distribution within 10 mi of the site. For sites considered in NUREG-1150 
(NRC 1990-TN525), these risks were well below the Commission’s safety goals (51 FR 30028- 
TN594). In general, risks calculated for the US-APWR, one AP1000, a U.S. EPR, and an 
ABWR at the PSEG Site are lower than the risks associated with the current-generation 


NUREG-2168 


5-114 


November 2015 



Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


reactors considered in NUREG-1150. While the US-APWR design at the PSEG Site may have 
a higher average individual early fatality risk than two of the reactors assessed in NUREG- 
1150, all risk values are well below the Commission’s safety goals. 

The NRC staff compared the core damage frequency and population dose risk estimate for a 
US-APWR, an API 000, a U.S. EPR, and an ABWR at the PSEG Site with statistics 
summarizing the results of contemporary severe accident analyses performed for over 70 
reactors at over 40 sites. The results of these analyses are included in the final site-specific 
Supplements 1 through 49 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License 
Renewal, NUREG-1437 (NRC 2013-TN2654) and in ERs included with license renewal 
applications for sites for which supplements have not been published. All of the analyses were 
completed after publication of NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990-TN525); the analyses for most of the 
reactors used MACCS2, which was released in 1997. 

Table 5-31 shows that core damage frequency estimated for the US-APWR, API000, U.S. 

EPR, and ABWR is significantly lower than those of current-generation reactors. Similarly, the 
population doses estimated for any of the four reactor technologies considered at the PSEG 
Site are well below the mean and median values for current-generation reactors that have 
undergone or are undergoing license renewal and are lower than the current reactor minimum 
except for the US-APWR. The reason the US-APWR population dose risk is larger than the 
current reactor minimum (with a value of 5.5 * 10~ 3 person-Sv/R-yr for Arkansas Nuclear One) 
is due to the larger population within a 50-mi range of the PSEG Site. Population projections for 
the year 2081 have been considered for the PSEG Site (PSEG 2015-TN4280). The year 2081 
has been selected considering the 40-year operating life plus the potential 20-year license 
extension. The startup date has been considered in the year 2020. The population projection 
for the year 2081 is the most conservative estimate because it corresponds to the highest 
population value at the end of the site operation, assuming the population always increases with 
time. 

Finally, the population dose risk from a severe accident for a new US-APWR (this is the reactor 
with the largest population dose risk of the four reactors considered) at the PSEG Site 
(1.15 x 10- 2 person-Sv/Ryr) may be compared with the dose risk for normal operation of a 
US-APWR at the PSEG Site. The population dose risk from normal operation of a US-APWR is 
0.6 person-Sv/yr (PSEG 2015-TN4280). Thus, the population dose risk associated with a 
severe accident is less than the dose risk associated with normal operations. 

5.11.2.2 Surface- Water Path ways 

Surface-water pathways are an extension of the air pathway. These pathways cover the effects 
of radioactive material deposited on open bodies of water. The surface water pathways of 
interest include exposure to external radiation from submersion in water and activities near the 
water, ingestion of water, and ingestion of fish and other aquatic creatures. Of these pathways, 
the MACCS2 code evaluates only the ingestion of contaminated water. The risks associated 
with this surface-water pathway calculated for the PSEG Site are included in the last column of 
Table 5-26, Table 5-27, Table 5-28, and Table 5-29. For each accident class, the population 
dose risk from ingestion of water is a small fraction of the dose risk from the air pathway. 


November 2015 


5-115 


NUREG-2168 



Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Surface-water pathways involving swimming, fishing, and boating are not modeled by 

MACCS2. Typical population exposure risk for the aquatic food pathway for sites located 

on small rivers was considered in NUREG-1437 (NRC 2013-TN2654). For these sites, 

the population dose from the food pathway was below the population dose from the air pathway. 

Analysis of water-related exposure pathways at the Fermi reactor, NUREG-0769 

(NRC 1981-TN675) suggests population exposures from swimming are significantly lower 

than exposures from the aquatic ingestion pathway. 

If a severe accident occurred at the PSEG Site, it is likely that Federal, State, and local officials 
would restrict access to the river/bay near the site and in contaminated areas around the site. 
These actions would further reduce surface-water pathway exposures. 

Surface-water bodies within the 50-mi region of PSEG Site include the Chesapeake Bay, 
Delaware Bay, Delaware River, Susquehanna River, Smyrna River, Schuylkill River, Cooper 
River, and the several reservoirs listed in Table 2.3-3 of the PSEG ER (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 
The tributary streams in the vicinity of the PSEG Site are listed in Table 2.3-4 of the PSEG ER 
(PSEG 2015-TN4280). The NRC evaluated doses from the aquatic food pathway (fishing) for 
the current nuclear fleet discharging to various bodies of water in NUREG-1437, Generic 
Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NRC 2013-TN2654). 
The NRC evaluation concluded that with interdiction, the risk associated with the aquatic food 
pathway is small relative to the atmospheric pathway for most sites and essentially the same as 
the atmospheric pathway for the few sites with large annual aquatic food harvests. The new site 
atmospheric pathway doses are lower than those of the current U.S. nuclear fleet; therefore, the 
doses from surface-water sources are consistently lower for a new reactor at the PSEG Site as 
well. 

5.11.2.3 Groundwater Path way 

The groundwater pathway involves a reactor core melt, reactor vessel failure, and penetration of 
the floor (basemat) below the reactor vessel. Ultimately, core debris reaches the groundwater 
where soluble radionuclides are transported with the groundwater. MACCS2 does not evaluate 
the environmental risks associated with severe accident releases of radioactive material to 
groundwater. However, this pathway has been addressed by NUREG-1437 in the context of 
renewal of licenses for current-generation reactors (NRC 2013-TN2654). In NUREG-1437, the 
staff assumes a 1 * 10^ Ryr 1 probability of occurrence of a severe accident with a basemat 
melt-through leading to potential groundwater contamination. The staff concluded that 
groundwater contribution to risk is generally a small fraction of the risk attributable to the 
atmospheric pathway. 

The NRC staff has re-evaluated its assumption of a 1 * 10~ 4 Ryr 1 probability of a basemat 
melt-through. The NRC staff considers the 1 x 10 -4 probability to be too large for new sites. 

The probability of core melt with basemat melt-through should be no larger than the total core 
damage frequency estimate for the reactor. Table 5-30 gives a total core damage frequency 
estimate of 1.2 xIO -6 for the US-APWR, the largest core damage frequency of the four reactor 
technologies considered. NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990-TN525) indicates that the conditional 
probability of a basemat melt-through ranges from 0.05 to 0.25 for current-generation reactors. 
New designs include features to reduce the probability of basemat melt-through in the event of a 


NUREG-2168 


5-116 


November 2015 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


core melt accident. On this basis, the staff believes a basemat melt-through probability of less 
than 1.7 x 10~ 7 Ryr' (MHI 2008-TN3317) is reasonable and still conservative. 

The groundwater pathway is also more tortuous and affords more time for implementing 
protective and remedial actions and, therefore, results in a lower risk to the public. The same 
consideration applies to the other three reactor types considered at the PSEG Site. As a result, 
the staff concludes the risks associated with releases to groundwater are sufficiently small that 
they would not have a significant effect on overall risk of a severe accident for a new reactor at 
the PSEG Site. 

5.11.2.4 Externally Initiated Events 

The analyses described above are specifically for internally initiated events. PSEG’s ER and 
SSAR do not address potential probability-weighted consequences (i.e., risk) from externally 
initiated events. The consideration of externally initiated events is not necessary for the NRC 
staff to reach a finding concerning the risks of the reactor designs considered by PSEG as 
related to the risks for current-generation reactors from severe accidents. However, externally 
initiated events can have notable contributions to the total averted costs dependent on the 
reactor design. As outlined by 10 CFR 52.79(a)(46) (TN251), Regulatory Guide 1.206 
(NRC 2007-TN3035), and Section 19.0 Revision 2 of NUREG-0800 (NRC 2007-TN3036), these 
events are required to be included in the Level 1 and Level 2 of the probabilistic risk 
assessment and, as such, would be considered in the offsite consequences analysis and the 
severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA) assessment. Therefore, the NRC staff expects 
PSEG would include externally initiated events in a SAMA assessment for a combined license 
application. 

5.11.2.5 Summary of Se vere A ccident Impacts 

The NRC staff has reviewed the analysis in the PSEG ER (PSEG 2015-TN4280) and conducted 
its own confirmatory analysis using the MACCS2 code. The results of the PSEG analysis and 
the NRC analysis indicate that the environmental risks associated with severe accidents if a 
US-APWR, two API000 reactors, a U.S. EPR, or an ABWR were to be located at the PSEG 
Site would be small compared to risks associated with operation of the current-generation 
reactors at the PSEG Site and other sites. These risks are well below NRC safety goals. On 
these bases, the staff concludes the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents at 
the PSEG Site would be of SMALL significance for one US-APWR reactor, one U.S. EPR 
reactor, one ABWR reactor, or two API000 reactors. 

It is worth noting that a significant effort has been made to re-quantify realistic severe accident 
source terms under the State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analysis (SOARCA) project 
(NRC 2012-TN3089; NRC 2012-TN3092). The results of the SOARCA project indicate that 
source term timing progresses more slowly, and releases much smaller amounts of radioactive 
material than calculated in earlier studies. As a result, public health consequences from severe 
nuclear power plant accidents modeled in SOARCA are smaller than previously calculated. 

At the COL stage, the NRC staff would need to verify that the environmental impacts of severe 
accidents from the selected reactor technology at the PSEG Site remain bounded by the 


November 2015 


5-117 


NUREG-2168 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


environmental impacts from the designs and their respective DCD revisions considered in this 
EIS. For the COL submission, NRC anticipates that applicant analyses will be comprehensive 
in scope and will address all applicable internal and external events and all plant operating 
modes. 

5.11.3 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives 
This section is not required for an ESP permit. 

5.11.4 Summary of Postulated Accident Impacts 

The NRC staff evaluated the environmental impacts from both DBAs and internally initiated 
severe accidents for four different reactor technologies (ABWR, API 000 dual-unit, U.S. EPR, 
and US-APWR) at the PSEG Site. Based on the information provided by PSEG and the NRC 
staff’s independent review, the NRC staff concludes the potential environmental impacts from 
the operation of the four reactor designs evaluated in this EIS at the PSEG Site would be 
SMALL. However, the environmental impacts of SAMAs or involving other reactor designs 
cannot be resolved in this ESP review and they can be resolved at the COL stage. 

5.12 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Operation 

In its evaluation of environmental impacts during operation of a new nuclear power plant at the 
PSEG Site, the review team considered PSEG’s stated intent to comply with the following 
measures and controls that would limit adverse environmental impacts: 

• compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations 
intended to prevent or minimize adverse environmental impacts (e.g., solid-waste 
management, erosion and sediment control, air emissions, noise control, stormwater 
management, discharge prevention and response, and hazardous material management); 

• compliance with applicable requirements of permits or licenses required for construction of a 
new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site (e.g., Department of the Army Section 404 
Permit, NPDES permit); 

• compliance with existing PSEG processes and/or procedures applicable for environmental 
compliance activities during construction and preconstruction at the PSEG Site (e.g., solid- 
waste management, hazardous-waste management, and discharge prevention and 
response); 

• incorporation of environmental requirements into construction contracts; and 

• management and minimization of solid, radiological, chemical, and hazardous wastes. 

Examples of PSEG measures to minimize impacts and protect the environment include 

• using BMPs for construction and preconstruction activities, 

• implementing plans to manage stormwater and to prevent and appropriately address 
accidental spills, 

• managing and/or restoring wetlands and marsh creek channels, and 


NUREG-2168 


5-118 


November 2015 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


• adhering to Federal, State, and local permitting requirements. 

The review team considered these measures and controls in its evaluation of the potential 
environmental impacts of plant operation. Table 5-32 summarizes the measures and controls to 
limit adverse impacts during operation of a new nuclear power plant at the PSEG Site based on 
Table 5.10-1 in the PSEG ER (PSEG 2015-TN4280) and other information provided by the 
applicant. Some measures apply to more than one impact category. 


Table 5-32. Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Operation 
of a New Nuclear Power Plant at the PSEG Site 


Resource Area 
Land-Use Impacts 

—The Site and Vicinity 

—Causeway Right-of-Way 
and Offsite Areas 

Water-Related Impacts 

—Hydrologic Alterations and 
Plant Water Supply 


—Water-Use Impacts 


—Water Quality Impacts 


Specific Measures and Controls 


• Limit continued disturbance of vegetation to the area within the site 
designated for construction of a new nuclear power plant. 

• Maintenance activities will follow established procedures and will 
conform with regulations to minimize soil or water impacts. 


• Stormwater BMPs and permit requirements to limit erosion and 
sedimentation due to runoff 

• Prepare and maintain an SWPPP and comply with NJPDES permit to 
minimize releases. 

• Engineered discharge outfall minimizes scour 

• Discharge structure to be designed to promote rapid mixing to 
minimize thermal and chemical impacts 

• During drought periods, water consumption offset, as required by 
DRBC, by release of water from the PSEG existing allocation upstream 
reservoir water storage 

• Effluent discharges limited; compliance with CWA regulations (40 CFR 
Part 423-TN253), compliance with NJPDES regulations, and blowdown 
treated to minimize discharge of residual chemicals 

• Chemical and thermal impacts limited by NJPDES permit requirements 

• Prepare and maintain an SPCCP to minimize the impacts of any spills. 

• BMPs for dredging and stormwater controls to limit sediment impacts 
on surface-water quality 

• BMPs and spill controls (including hazmat first response team and 
secondary containment designs) and counter-measures used to limit 
and contain chemical spills; remedial measures are regulated by 
NJDEP 

• Limit planned effluent discharges and monitor such discharges in 
compliance with CWA regulations (Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
[33 USC 1251 et seq. -TN662]) and NJPDES permit specifications 


November 2015 


5-119 


NUREG-2168 







Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 



Table 5-32. (continued) 

Resource Area 

Specific Measures and Controls 

Cooling System Impacts 
—Intake System 

Hydrodynamic 

Descriptions and 

Physical Impacts 

Design of new intake to comply with regulations on new facility intake 
structures 

To limit impact of noise associated with operations of water makeup 
pumps, protective hearing equipment would be used, as appropriate, 
by employees working near the pumps and cooling towers. 

Stabilize shoreline with erosion controls, as needed. 

Water intake design to avoid buildup of sediment deposits and debris 

Aquatic Ecosystems 

Design of new intake to comply with regulations on new facility intake 
structures 

Utilization of closed-cycle cooling and cooling towers using the best 
technology available 

Design of intake structures to ensure minimum water velocity through 
screens designed to prevent fish from being drawn into the intake 
structure; use a return system to deposit impinged fish and other 
aquatic biota downstream of the intake in the Delaware River 

Use BMPs to minimize sediment loading during any maintenance 
dredging activities. 

—Discharge System 

Thermal Discharges and 
Other Physical Impacts 

Aquatic Ecosystems 

Bottom scour to be mitigated by engineered discharge pipe 

Discharges controlled in accordance with NJPDES permit 

To the extent practicable, equipment employed and positioned to 
reduce scouring and turbidity effects 

Reduction of thermal plume effects on aquatic organisms through use 
of cooling towers and closed-loop cooling cycle 

Blowdown treated to minimize discharge of residual chemicals 
according to NJPDES permit specifications 

—Cooling Towers 

Heat Dissipation to the 
Atmosphere 

Drift eliminators to be used in cooling towers to minimize the amount of 
water lost for the towers via drift 

Blowdown treated to minimize total dissolved content of circulating 
water according to NJPDES permit specifications 

Terrestrial Ecosystems 

Impacts to Members of 
the Public 

Cooling towers designed to minimize noise levels and drift 

Noise attenuates to site boundary and offsite residences 

As applicable, workers trained in compliance with Noise Control Act 
(NCA; 42 USC 4901 et seq. -TN4294) and OSHA 

To limit impact of noise associated with operations of water makeup 
pumps, protective hearing equipment would be used, as appropriate, 
by employees working near the pumps and cooling towers. 

Water periodically monitored and tested for thermophilic 
microorganisms according to CDC Surveillance for Waterborne- 
Disease Outbreaks - United States 

Workers trained on safe work procedures including, as appropriate, the 
use of air respirators 


NUREG-2168 

5-120 November 2015 






Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Table 5-32. (continued) 


Resource Area 
Ecological Impacts 

—Terrestrial Ecosystems 


—Aquatic Ecosystems 


Socioeconomic Impacts 

—Physical Impacts of a New 
Nuclear Power Plant 


Specific Measures and Controls 


• Minimize potential impacts through compliance with permitting 
requirements. 

• Vegetation management primarily through mechanical clearing, with 
herbicide application in accordance with integrated pest management 
plans: herbicides are applied by trained employees licensed to apply 
herbicides 

• Employees trained on how to perform work in a manner that reduces 
adverse environmental impacts 

• To the extent feasible, avoid any additional disturbances on critical or 
sensitive terrestrial habitats/species. 

• As practical, machinery use. noise suppression/mufflers, and vehicles 
are maintained to reduce emissions. 

• Readily available spill response materials and personnel trained to 
respond to, clean up, and report spills 

• Employees trained in hazardous materials/waste procedures to 
minimize the risk of spills 

• Closed-cycle cooling, size and design of intake screens to ensure low 
approach water velocity across screens of less than 0.5 fps to minimize 
impingement and entrainment. 

• Discharges to the Delaware River Estuary are expected to meet 
NJPDES permitting requirements. Chemical discharges would be 
monitored, and concentrations are expected to be below criteria that 
are protective of aquatic life. 

• Aquatic resources on the site and in offsite corridors are protected 
during maintenance activities with BMPs that comply with Federal and 
State permits to prevent degradation of water quality. 


• Measures to mitigate impacts to level of service (LOS) for local roads 
from construction traffic would be left in place 

• Coordination with NJDEP on final modeling of air emissions and ways 
to reduce PM 25 emissions to meet regulatory limits 

• Zoning and land-use restriction may be used to help manage 
development. 

• Train and appropriately protect employees to reduce the risk or 
potential exposure to noise. 

• Monitor release of waste emissions and effluents. 

• Train workers on procedures and regulations involving waste 
emissions and effluents. 


November 2015 


5-121 


NUREG-2168 






Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Table 5-32. (continued) 


Resource Area 

—Socioeconomic Impacts of 
a New Nuclear Power Plant 


Environmental Justice 

Historic and Cultural 
Resources 

Air Quality 

Nonradiological Health 
Impacts 


Specific Measures and Controls _ 

• Measures to mitigate impacts to LOS for local roads from construction 
traffic would be left in place to offset traffic impacts from the operational 
workforce. 

• Increased property and worker-related taxes can help offset some of 
the problems potentially related to increased population such as 
community facilities and infrastructure, police, fire protection, and 
schools. 

• Local land zoning and ordinances can help mitigate potential 
socioeconomic growth problems. 

• Provide appropriate job training to workers. 

• Provide onsite services for emergency first aid, and conduct regular 
health and safety monitoring. 

• No mitigating measures or controls required beyond those listed above 

• Follow established procedures to halt work and consult with the State 
Historic Preservation Office if a potential unanticipated historic, cultural, 
or paleontological resource is discovered. 

• Obtain air permits and operate systems within permit limits, and 
monitor air quality/emissions as required. 

• Implement site-wide Safety and Medical Program, including safety 
policies and safe work practices, as well as general and topic-specific 
training. 


Radiological Impacts of Normal Operation 


—Radiation Doses to • 

Members of the Public 




—Impacts to Biota Other than • 
Humans 




Calculated doses for all exposure pathways less than guidelines 
established in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I (TN249), and regulatory 
limits set in 40 CFR Part 190 (TN739) 

Effluent discharges must comply with requirements specified in 10 CFR 
Part 20 (TN283). 

Comply with requirements and design to maintain dose ALARA . 
Implement an annual offsite Radiological Environmental Monitoring 
Program to evaluate potential exposures and doses to members of the 
public. 

Calculated doses for biota other than humans within NCRP and IAEA 
guidelines. 

Implement an annual offsite Radiological Environmental Monitoring 
Program to evaluate potential exposures and doses to biota other than 
humans and the environment. 

Use of exposure guidelines, such as 40 CFR Part 190 (TN739), that 
apply to members of the public in unrestricted areas, is considered very 
conservative when evaluating calculated doses to biota other than 
humans. The ICRP states that"... if man is adequately protected, then 
other living things are also likely to be sufficiently protected,” and uses 
human protection to infer environmental protection from the effects of 
ionizing radiation. 


NUREG-2168 


5-122 


November 2015 






Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


Table 5-32. (continued) 


Resource Area Specific Measures and Controls 

—Occupational Radiation • Establish a monitoring program for workforce exposure. 

D° ses • Based on the available PPE data, the maximum annual occupational 

dose at the PSEG Site is expected to be less than that from SGS 
(TEDE to workers 118 person-rem) and HCGS (TEDE to workers 
191 person-rem). Impacts to workers from occupational radiation 
doses are SMALL and do not warrant additional mitigation. 

• Comply with requirements and design to maintain dose ALARA . 

Accidents 


—Design Basis Accidents • The calculated dose consequences of design basis accidents for a 

US-APWR, an API000, a U.S. EPR, or an ABWR at the PSEG Site 
were found to be within regulatory limits. 

—Severe Accidents • The calculated probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents 

for the US-APWR, API000, U.S. EPR or ABWR designs at the PSEG 
Site were found to be lower than the probability-weighted 
consequences for current operating reactors and the Commission’s 
safety goals. 


Nonradiological Waste Impacts 


—Nonradioactive Waste 
System Impacts 


• Emissions to the atmosphere and discharges to surfaces waters in 
accordance with Federal, State, and local regulations 

• Solid wastes recycled to the extent possible with remaining wastes 
disposed of in approved landfills 

• Hazardous waste carefully monitored 

• Sanitary wastes from a new sewage treatment plant managed on the 
site and disposed of offsite in compliance with applicable laws, 
regulations, and permit conditions 

• Nonhazardous, nonradioactive waste generated and disposed of 
according to applicable local, State, and Federal regulations, including 
the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended (42 USC 6901 et seq. - 
TN1281) 

• Discharges from the sediment retention pond monitored in accordance 
with SWPPP 

• Minor air emissions sources operated in accordance with applicable 
Federal, State, and local regulations 


—Pollution Prevention and • Comply with current Waste Minimization Plan developed for existing 

Waste Minimization SGS and HCGS to address hazardous waste management, treatment 

(decay in storage), work planning, waste tracking, and awareness 
training. __ 

Source: Adapted from Table 5.10-1 in the PSEG Environmental Report (PSEG 2015-TN4280). 


5.13 Summary of Operational Impacts 

The review team’s evaluation of the environmental impacts of operations at a new nuclear 
power plant at the PSEG Site is summarized in Table 5-33. Impact category levels are denoted 
in the table as SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE as a measure of their expected adverse 
impacts. Some impacts, such as the addition of tax revenue for the local economies, are likely 
to be beneficial and are noted as such in the Impact Level column. 


November 2015 


5-123 


NUREG-2168 










Table 5-33. Summary of Operational Impacts for a New Nuclear Power Plant at the PSEG Site 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


o 

O) 

0) 

rc 0 
O > 


o 

0 

o. 

E 


(/> 

c 

Q) 

E 

E 

o 

o 


0 

O 

l_ 

3 

o 

0 

0 

01 


< 

C0 


< 
C0 


TD 

C 

to 

o 

c 


E s 

£ 0 

2 8 
3 O 
O O 

5 0 

C/5 -O 

II 

gi 


0 
£ 'O 
0 £ 

Z — 

■D {= 

§3 

b) c . 
E .E 0 

C Q.< 

C ITS 

.2 to > 


CL 0 -> 

8« o 

xj cir 

E -o O 

© 3 Q 

o t- 
£ <15 

^ TD 
0 0 C 


0 

CO 


0 


"O 


E 3 


O | 
05 o 
E °- 
"O TO 
8 •§ 


N 

TO 


c 

o 

0 

o 


0 

c 

0 

05 


CL .!= 

■O 5 
0 

TO ©■ 

0 O 


■o 

c 

TO 


£ 

05 <15 

E 0 


§Nf 

O _ ' 

I 


0 <-> 
0 0 


0 .t 

-4—* 

O 


0 

0 


0 0 
CL XZ 

•i o 
0 

3 <15 
' C 

■o y= 
C C 
0 O 
_J o 


O" 

'c 

3 


0 


0 

0 o 
0 (J 
0 c 

- § 

•n W w 

c .52 -o 

0 3 C 

— o: 0 

05 r; 

C >* C 

® j: 

0 co ro 

'X 0 !_ 

0 —) o 


0 § 
o > 

TO "O 

a C 

E 

— 0 

<u ~ 

0 co 

Z) 0 

i - 

TO 


0 

XD 

* E 


3 

O 

$ 

© = 

£ 0 

O Q. 


0 ° 
F ^ 
0 © 


0 
T3 

0^i5 


■o 

0 

c 


c 

o 

o 


0 

$ 

o 

Q. 


_ -S 0 

0 TO "O 

05 a> 0 
.E cl — 
2 O 0 

TO 

-3 C 

m C TO 

S 0 t 

o E O 

— 0 Q- 

co ^ 

O C 0 
CO 0 ;g 


0 
0 

p 

0 c 

o £ 

C 0 

1 ™ 
0 ^ 
-Cl TO 

■0 0 
gj 

5 to 

© 0 
<5 CL 

TO ° 

C 05 

O .E 

. E 3 
TO TD 

E >, 
>, 5 

TO 
$ 

0 
0 
3 
0 
TO 0 


0 

0 

3 

0 

TO 


0 O 

TO 05 

0 0 

f 3 

8 I 

"O 0 

c O 
0 0 
_J TO 


cc 

o ^ 
*- 0 

O. 2 
0 0 
TO 5 
X > 

— TO 

05 Z 

I? 
8 01 
n g> 

TO - 

— C 

CO -2 

o ©- 

w 0 

0 3 

0 Y 

CO 0 

O 

i -2 

— </> 

0 -Q 

0 m 

TO 0 
0 ^ 
3 Q. 

■z i 

05 O 

O I— 
0 o 
x o 

0 .Q 

_c E 

i © 

> LU 

c c 
0 — 
c 

■— o 
0 

C TO 
O 0 
TO 0 


*2 0 

II 

o ° 

10 

»g 

OQ 

0 0 
3 y 

I 3 
0 

=x-o 

0 C 
$ 0 
<15 ~ 
<55 TO 

5 O 

0 C 

O TO 

0 tr 
-c o 

CL 

o E 


0 

0 


0 


*J 0 

E “ 

B 50 

TO 0 
C 3 
TO cr 
^ C 

0 ^ 
o ° 

N w 

2 § 

0 — 

2 E 
o }— 

O ^2 


■o 

0 

0 

o 

CL 

o 

CL 

0 SI 
£ 0 
— $ 
0 0 
.t; 0 

0 3 

it TO 

O O 


0 

o 

0 

a 

E 

■o 

0 


< 

CO 


CD 
LU 
CO 

Q- 0 

0 0 o 
-- > Q. 

TO CL 

J» 

31 ? 

r*\ ‘— 


■O 

0 


TO 

X 

0 


TO 

u 

0 


0 


DC 

0 P 


0 


0 

0 

c 

£ 

o 


0 

'3 

cr 

u 

0 0' 

>S 3 
— xz 
c I— 
0 
c 

TO 

E 

L_ 

0 


0 

3 

O 


0 $ 


0 

w C 
TO 0 — 


0 -iiL 

$ 


0 


TTs /E CL 


0 o 

Q - 


0 

JC 

E 

o 


0 

'C JC 
1 — ^ 

0 o 


0 


0 

4 
I! 

J= 0 

0 0 

§.0 

11 

0 


0 

c 

_0 c ■ P 
” 'Z 0 

TO O 
o 

TO = 
TO 

0 
0 
3 

0 
> 


0 


0 

E 

.a ^ 

15 

81 
C ^ 
_TO 

Q. 0 

^ Q 

ll 

<^ c 


_0 
TO 
$ 

TO 

4 

•f O 
c 
o 


© £ > CD ' 0 


E 0 


0 0 

^ 0 
1 o 

0 ^ 

o 0 

V0 0 

3 

0 


CL 

E 

3 
0 
c 

05 o 

TO TO 


E 

.<"o ro 

= x £ 0 

t 0 TO 
0 TO <55 2 
3.b 


. O 0 


0 

C 


TO 


0 

C 

0 


0 3 
CL TO 


0 

0 

> 

0 


0 


05 ( r\ 

C "O 
•C LU -5 
O CO g 

Q CL TO 


.£ E 

§ 2 

^3 CD 

8 5 
1 3 
0 _ 

■- TO 
x: c 

05 o 
3 E; 
O T 3 

> -o 

±= TO 


0 


TO 

TO 

CL 

E 


0 

TO 
0 
t: 

3 
0 — 
— 0 
0 3 

.I 8 

TO 

■O x: 
■O O 
0 c 


0 


0 

V) TO 

m Q) <D 

— O 

<D m 03 

QC ^ t 

i I co 

03 

£ 


< 

co 


TD 

C TO 

0 _C 

0 .ti 

E 

3 c 

0 c 
>> Q. 
0 05 

0 ° 
TO CM 
$ 0 
_TO 

O ^ 
0 3 

O 0 

CL $ 

TD 0 
c 
0 

cT 0 
0 $ 
c E 

0 "O 

0 J= 


i_ 0 E 
0 $ .0 

^5 TO 0 

: © S 

c£ c 

$ '5 © 

© 0 -E 

3 £ TO 

TO 0 

E O 0 
2 0 E 
-o c 

© = E 
0 0 c 


TO 


0 

$ 

0 


m "O 


E o 


TD 
0 

o > ~ 


~ O 0 0 

P O ~ © 

E ° O 05 

<15 0 3 J- 

8 JC C -2 
- .05 $ ^ 

-* *- 0 O 

8 


0 2 . 

C 05 
O 0 


0 


0 


0 0 
CL 0 
O jo 

05 I— 
E 

3 0 

^ TO 
•O $ 

© 2 

0 Cl 


X5 

E 

o 

TO 

■O 

0 

TO 

0 


05 

CO 

LC5 

0 

0 

’c 

3 

CO 

CD 

O 

X 


0 

TO 

'td 

c 

0 

xz 


E 

CL 

05 

LO 

co 


05 

c 


0 ___ 

TO ^ i 
$ ° X 


■O 
CL 0 
X O 

<15 CO _ 

© CD a 5 
lE co -o 

El E 

Q. 0 
05 'x 

CO © 

0 


0 0 
TO 0 

5 ■- 
■© E 
0 

TD 


C 

3 

O 


LO 
05 

O 
0 

TO __ 

E 0 -o 

Z5 CL 0 

E - © 


"O 

c 

TO 


0 

TO 

"O 

c 

3 

O 

05 


CD 


0 

X 5- 
TO 

E 


o 

CL 


0 

0 

■O 

c 

3 

o 

(D 


NUREG-2168 


5-124 


November 2015 


and other impacts on aquifer quality. Thus, groundwater use for a new nuclear power plant 
would not cause salinity changes in the PRM aquifer system or impact offsite groundwater 
users. 




Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


"O 

TO 

D 

C 

'•*-> 

c 

o 

o 


CO 

CO 

■ 

in 

_ro 

n 

ro 


o 

03 

to 

ro 

O > 


o 

0 

o. 

E 


0 

■*-> 

c 

TO 

E 

E 

o 

o 


0 

TO 


<D 

o 

k. 

3 

o 

0 

to 

X 


< 

CD 


03 

_0 

O 

3 cF 

C O 
£ O 
a; oo 
c *- 

_ 3 

03 o 

C -Q 

o 

11 
3 0 
Cl£ 

"ro o 
E c 
to a) 
£ £ 
a; 3 
P o 

03 -C 
0 

03 


O 

C/3 


O 

_0 

$< 

03 

C < 

03 O 

E 1 
o co 
£ O 

03 CO 

E 03 

3 C 
Q- 

03 'x 

03 0 

03 0 
-C -C 

o — 

to c 


E S 
E -o 
0 0 
£ E 

’03 


L_ £ 

0 o 

0 0 

It 

0 £ 

0 13 

?£ 

TO 

- 03 

CO ^ 

O 2 
o 2 

X 03 
Cl 

CO E 

O TO 

^ 0 
0 
0 
o 

X 

0 


co 

C/3 

0 

o 

X 

0 

0 

sz 

0 


■O 

0 

0 

O 0 
X 0 
0 - 


0 


0 


o 

0 

T3 

C X3 0 

- 0 


0 


= £ 0 TO 

TO - >* > 

1^3 § 

CO “3 a, ° 

0 ■«“ sz 


E 

o 


0 


E 

o 


0 

TO ^ 
cn£ 

0 

o 
o 

h- 


0 


0 3 
C O 
O -Q 
•-3 0 

E TO 

g 

>< -D 

X o 
O ^ 
O c 

C TO 
O CL 

T3 >- 
0 0 
TO £ 
0 O 
CD CL 


c 

H 8 

E f 

0 £ 

i= Q- 

C E 

> o 

> o 

-O TO 

^ "O 
° 3 
° o 

£ * 
II 

0 Q_ 
"O 

c 03 
03 $ 

- O 
E CL 
TO i= 

0 03 

E 0 
0 o 

CL 3 
3 C 


0 

TO CD 

?o 

TO CO 

TO E 

TO 5 


TO x 

£ TO 


0 


0 


0 


3 

m C 

TO 0 

TO £ 

P TO 
E 0 
TO V 

0 0 
0 _Q 

8£ 

3 

o 

$ 


m -£— 

O^O 
C 0 0 
'F -C TO 
t — k. 

0 £ £ 
_q £ 3 

ill 

> ° c 

>00 

c — Q- 

C TO 

^ 0 £ 

| < Q. 

2 I 03 
Q- 0 
- C/) -g 

s o 8 

TO Q c 
8 X $ 

C 03 TO 

Hi £ ^ 
TO 0 03 
c 'x E 
0 0 o 

E TO J= 
o £ TO 
,k- 03 

^ TO j- 
0 "O TO 
0 •; “ 


o TO3 

TO o 


0 

CL 

o 

0 

0 

0 


0 
i _ 

o 


TO 

TO TO 
0 0 
9--TO 

'0 £ 
■a o 

0 X 

0 llJ 

0 Q 

x 


£5 

fTo 

C LLI 

TO CO 

cr Q - 
0 0 


>*? 
O 03 

8-m 

|g 

£ o' 

Q. _0 

Id 

E _ 


TO 5 -TO 
f; £ 0 
CO E 0 

o 8 ■£ 

LLI 0 O 
CO -TO _ 
Q- O 

n: 

<5 £ § 
— 0 $ 
C _C ‘ 
TO |- c 
CL . 0 


c 

TD 


0 


0 


£ -o 0 0 

r~ j— r— 


■g 

3 

O 

o 


T3 

C 

0 

CO 

O 

o 

X 


0 


0 

0 


03 


0 


0 

C 

!o 


0 

JC 

TO 0 
£ o 


O 

_ 0 
O X3 


X 
0 
TO CO 

$ O 

TO CO 
0 
Q 
0 


_ 0 
TO^ 0 
TO 0 
0 


0 


O 

0 

"c 

3 


0 

0 

E 

_3 

CL 

0 


o E 

CL TO 

- 2 

0 - 

£ c 

o 0) 

8 TO 

$ TO 
0 TO 

c cr 
_ 0 
0 

£ £ 
< o 
Q £ 
x o 

C CL 

TO o 
0 

■F TO 
TO o 

§>? 


l o 

o CD 
JC 
■O o 
0 0 
TO3 ^o 
TO >■ 


0 

C 

0 


gE 

‘o 

0 


0 

0 


0 

0 


O -F — 


c 

0 


E E 


T3 —* TO 
— TO —i 
0 0 


8 TO 

O 

- 1 — o 


0 


0 0 
r. _C 

S £ 


TO 

TO 


0 


c 
0 l, J 

3 S 

0 JC 

0 ^ 
Q-U. 
E ° 
0 co 
£ co 


O ±= 
CJ 0 

>^-C 

JD ~ 

■O o 

TO d 

0 TO 
O i- 

II 


TO (D 

0 TO 


O E 


0 

$ 

o 

CL 

0 

£ 

o 

3 

CZ 

$ 

0 

c 

0 

T3 

C 

0 

CO 

0 

O 

X 

c 6 

0 L 
CO ^ 

E x 

2 0 


-TO -o 
■o C 

3 

o 0 

$ .Q 

-H- 0 

% i 

O O 
0 o 

£ .Q 

8 E 

C 0 
5 TO 
£ W 
0 0 


TO 


c 
0 
E 

2 t 

3 > 
O' 

0 O 

■- 3 
cr 

i= 2 

■o o 
c o 
® $ 

E To 

TO “ 
Cl TO 

CO 5 
X £ 


c/3 


o 

C/3 

3 

0 TO p X TO £ 


0 


o 


Q 

X 


3 

cr 


E 

o 


0 

<i 

03 

c 


0 
» - 

TO O 

03 o 

£ ° 

St 0 

03 j= 

li 


0 

03 > 

£ X 

£, TO 
03 k. 
3 0 

2 ^ 
£ £ 
0 

< a 

^ TO 

O £ 
o 


0 

■O 


D)CvT 


o 


C/3 


0 TO 

TO $ 
TO -O 03 0 

tr 2 to to 
O -F -TO Q 
o TO O 

£ cr c /3 to 
o 23 £ 


TO 0 
> > 

o X 

o TO 

3 TO 
TO $ 

c £ 
o 0 
Z Q 


0 


■o 

0 

03 

L_ 

0 


0 C3 

3 £ 

03 T3 
TO 03 

2 c 
0 O 


£ 

to £ 

3 0 

or <: 

L. 


£ o 
0 0 

■a ? 

CO 


0 


< 

CO 


3 

-Q 


3 — 

St 5 
TO o- 

•O k- 

3 £ 

O" 0 
= ^ 

f £ 

-4—< 

O 

0 c 
o o 


0 
C Cl 

§.i 

Q3 0 
03 0 

0 £ 

o o 
0 


•O 
- 0 
0 0 
3 3 
-C 0 
I- O 

-O 1 
0 

3 £ 

— 3 

■O o 
0 ^ 

O § 
TO ~ 
0 X 

■° 03 
■O J= 
C TO 

0 ^ 

Is 


0 
0 

TO %4 
o.£ ™ 
k- TO F 
0 _C 2 
^0-Q 

o o ■£ 
-f 

>_ 0 > 
m 

_0 2 TO 

TO 03 'Jo 

= I * 

SI i 

coo 

0 ° 03 

o _c £ 

£ TO 
0 £ 3 

III 

■O — TO 

C 0F 
3 £ 3 

o 03 cr 

£ o to 

O Q- 
2 3 TO 
£ 03 

?o5 
0 — 


0 _C TO 


o TO 2 

|E 8 
^ 0 £ 
0 sz c 
C TO - 
■i= o TO 
3 E c 
o o = 

c> 
£ 3 

CL W 
~~ 0 0 
o ^ ® 
c 2 § 
0 3 N 
fl) o _ 
O TO ^ 
T3 c/3 0 
O TO £ 
LL §. 0 
£.i£ 


O 

c 

>.'E 

£ _Q 

"to 2 
CT n 

0 9 
*- $ 
"C3 co 
£ TO 
0 0 
- 0 
0 0 

| TO 

TO "CD 
0 o 

Q- 03 
^ O 

82 
E 10 
0 2 

£3 -o 

c c 
0 

E TO 

si 

TO 0 

E TO 

£ ^ 
TO o 

2 -o 
2 TO 
0 £ 


0 

XZ 0 

9 TO 
o CL 

"TO E 
0 — 
0 0 

£ £ 


TO -£ 
> .TO 5 

03 0 

P 


TO 

0 

$ 

"O 

c 

3 

O 

O 


November 2015 


5-125 


NUREG-2168 


Also, groundwater flow calculations would be revised once the final plant design is 
determined for a new nuclear power plant, including the type and design of any soil- 
retention barrier that may or may not remain in place around the power block. Details 
would be evaluated in the combined license application stage of the application process. 






Impact Category 

Resource Area _ Comments _ Level _ 

Ecological Impacts 


Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


< 

C/5 


0 

"i_ 

"0 

CD 

i_ 

0 

c 

CD 

-c 

o 

CL 

E 

03 

C 

TD 

_3 

o 


0 

0 

'o 

0 

Cl 

CO 

"c 

_cd 

Q_ 

T3 ' 
C 
CD 

CD 


-o 
O 
>> 

"c 
o 
> 

CD 


V) 


0 TO 

C/3 *J- 

03 03 
TO X3 

> "o 

CD 


CD 

CD 


CD 


CD 

_Q 


~ £ 
ZD 

o 
<i 


CD 

.E Z 

CD -C ■ 

■° O 
OD o 

— ^ _ 

CD -Q £ 

X) C3 

CD TZ 

-e 

CD o 

Q. 03 c 
£ CD c/3* 
> C ■§ 

C/3 ^ CD 
0 0 CL 
'(3 CD C/3 
O-q-O 
Cl o o 
C/3 £- 

c/3 E 
-O CD 

2 £ ‘ 

Q) 0 

0 05 

CD 


o 

LU 

05 

Q. 

CD 


o 

"c 

o 

> 

CD 


CD 


CD 

0 ) 


CO 


CD 


-o 

c 

_0 

03 


TO 

X 

CD 


~ O _ 
T3 _0 03 
03 to -O 
.TO CD 0 


-o 

C 

CD 

"to 

0 

CD 

l_ 

03 

O 

C/3 

O 

CD 

CL 

E 


"O 

c 

CD 

CO 

03 

O 

03 

CL 

C/3 

-o 

c 

CD 

03 

td 

c 

CD 


CD ~ 
Jr cd 
03 o 
"o .Q 
03 


03 


03 


CD 
CO 

_03 

n co 


£ -§ 


CD O CD 
~ 03 LU Jr 

E“ S 

<u ™ 
XI £ 03 

I- £ Cl 


CD 

l— 

CD 

£ 

CD 

"Hi TO 

Q £ 
LJ O 

Js; 03 
o CL 
"O TO 

E -O 

CD hr 
- >"° 

O 03 -q 
LU “> C 
C/5 $ CD 
CL CD co 

© Z £ 

-C 1 - C_> 
- O 0 ) 
CL 

O CO co 
> 0 ) 

~ o 03 

£ 03 £ 

O Q- £ 

> co ro 

c 1 W 
CD 03 

O £ o 
E C/5 0 
° — "O 
O TO © 

E o 

C £ C 

$ - — 
o "O 03 
c "O 

^ < cn 


,«T3 


to 

e 

£ 


■8 

(j ^ 

o s 

CO 


< 

CO 


_03 

O 

o 

I 

"O 

CD 

CO 

o 

o 


TD 
03 

0 
O 

£ CO CO 

CD 

x 


X3 CD 


03 

Q: 


c 

CD 


3 

O 


03 

CO 

3 


CD 

-o 

c 

CD 


-o 

c 

CD 

c 

CD 

E 

c 

CD 


c 

_0 

CL 

03 

$ 

o 

Cl 

L— 

CD 

_Q3 

O 

3 

C 

£ 

03 

C 

CD 

O 

03 

3 

O 
3 
-*—* 
CO 

03 

LxC 

CD 


c ^ 


-o 

03 

CO 

o 

CL 

o 

l— 

Q. 

CD 


03 

CO 

3 

CD 

O 

03 

05 


3 

o 

$ 

-U 

c 

CD 

CD 

3 

"co 

LU 

l_ 

03 

> 

be 

CD 

u. 

CD 

$ 

0 

03 

Q 

CD 

x 

'o 

CD 

c 

03 

V_ 

o 


C 

CO 03 
CL _ 
XZ 
ID .CO 

O ' 


o 

-4—» 

. TO 
8 | 
E c 

c O 

CD [/) 

£ o 

£ Q. 
! - 


CD 

O 

c 

CD 


E Id 


CD 

c 

CL 

E 


CD 


5s£ 

"G E 

- I 

03 C_ 
> 3 

03 W 
03 
CD -C 


O 

c 

03 

> 

CD 


CD 
O 

E 

03 
XZ 

xz O 

O -O 

c 

"O CD 
03 — 
O ^ 
03 E 

s-fc 

03 jC 
03 ^ 

TO CD 
CO 03 

8 TO 


$ g J> 

O O 
£ 03 
CD CL 

_ 03 £ 

c" O ^ 

o E 
o o O 

co 

m E ® 

S TO O 

E E to 

E >- 03 

E ® c 


_co 

CD 


03 

CO 

CD 

03 

O 

C 


o 

w f- 
03 .E 


E CD 
-r; o 
CD i_ 

3 3 
CT O 
CD CO 

c £ 
° o 

CO 

O 5 

§. ^ 

E ro 
.E CD 

Xi 

c ~- 

CD C 

E O 

03 CO 
03 

-E CD 

CL CL 

E E 


CO 


CO o 


CD ~ 
3 T3 
O 03 

£ 53 
CO 
03 


^ T3 

TO E 
e "£ 
I “ 

CO M 

% g 5 

03‘E 
,E 03 

o £ 
o o 

o CO 


TO . 

"O O 
_03 CD 

sf 

Q_ 

o TO 

O £ 
03 >- 

-TO £ 

£ TD 
3 03 
O 3 
$ CO 
CO 

03 — 
03 03 

% -TO 
CD 

X TD 
TO 3 
TO o 

■o $ 


CD 

E 

> 

CD 

$ 

CD 

CO 

3 

CD 

O 

X3 

c 

CD 

03 

C 

03 

"O 

03 


CD 


C 

_CD 

Q. 

CD 


<- 03 

E CL 

£ C/5 
•*" LU 
TO O 
TO n 

O □- 

15 

co 0 

0 X 


0 

o 

c 

0 

c 

0 

c 

0 

E 

0 

0 

_c 

o 

“ o 
w .E 
£ E 

> TO 
* -Q 
TO 0 

0 £ 


to 

03 

3 

O 

to 

03 

Cfc 


TO 

3 

O' 


< O 


05 


LU 
h- 
< 
o: 

LU 

Q 

o 


0 


- 05 >, 
TO .E 0 


CD 


X o 

3 O 
CL TO 

s I 
£ c 
0 o 

n 

TO 0 

0 0 
^ X 


0 

> 

0 

$ 

o 

I 


TO £ £ 
0 TO 3 

ZD 3= o 
0 TO > 
° 

"O X c 
TO CD m 
CO (D 
O o 0 
CL-^; 0 

£ ° £ 
0 2 8 

£ 
0 
05 


$ 

0 

= 0 ' 

0 0 


o 

0 

-O 

0 

0 


05 


> TO -o 

TO q_ g 

siila 

—' 0 

E ro 
ro O 

03 $ 

o 0 


£ x 

0 "O 

11 

0 ^ 

0 g 

CL O 

° W 
0 o 

TO CL 

o 0 

E 

CL TO 

E ~ 

“ "O 

£ S 

TO co" 

X' 03 

o. £ 
0 £ 

X ZD 
X 


05 

o 

LU 

05 

CL 

0 


0 


Q_ ^ 
c 
c 

0 0 

E ,E 


0 0 
0 o 


E 

o 

"O 


c 

0 

X 

c 

LU 


o 

CL 

£ 

TO 

> 


TO ^ O 
0 0 £ 
TO 3 0 

> 0 £ 
> LU ~ 
0 TO 

£ S- 

0 o 


0 

c 

-O 

c 


TO 0 ~ 
0 TO 0 

0 TO £ 
> > 0 
5 TO 0 
£ £ 0 


0 

o 

0 

Q. 

E 

o 

E 

o 

c 

o 

o 

0 

o 

0 

o 

05 


0 

o 

0 

CL 

E 

"0 

o 

"0 

>> 


r, Q. 


NUREG-2168 


5-126 


November 2015 


therefore, have a MODERATE physical impact on aesthetic resources. 

Demography The current and projected populations of the region are so large and the in-migrating SMALL 

population is so small that the in-migrating workers would represent less than 1% of the 
total population in any of the counties where these employees reside. Therefore, there 
would be no demographic impacts of operation on the remainder of the 50-mi region. 





Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


~o 

O) 

D 

_C 

■4—' 

c 

o 

o 


CO 

CO 

I 

LO 

0 

-Q 

to 


o 

03 

0) 

ro <d 

« s 

- 1 

co 

a 

E 


c 0 
■*-> 
c 
<D 

E 

E 

o 

o 


TO 

0) 


0 

O 

i_ 

3 

o 

0 

a) 

oc 


■D 

C 

03 


CO 

CD 

JD 

]3 

=3 

o 

$ 

03 

CD 

i _ 

03 

O 

03 

a. 

E 

o 

E 

o 

c 

o 

o 

CD 

■D 

c 

03 

c 

o 

a) 

a) 

CD 


=3 

O 

jc 

O) 

c £ 

i q 

£ to 

rs Cl 


CD 

JC 


—i .2 

i C ^ 

CO CD CO 
JD 


CD 

LU ^ £ 

0) 


_J O o 

—• ^ /v' 

< 2 2 Ml 5? 
o cross o 

ic Q3 £_) ^ 

<D 


O 

s 

o 

c 

o 

CJ 

LU 

t3 

C 

03 

■2 

o 

o 

CO 


> 

E 

o 

c 

o 

o 

LU 


c 

CD 

JD 


O 

CD 03 

O CD TO “> 

^ 0 CO 

JD 


5T v_^ 

0 c CL 
< 


LU -= 
TrC CD 


0) 

c 


o 

03 O 

Q. ■<— 

.1 £ 

o to 

E E B 
° >z c 
c 2 c 
o cl o 

8 

c y o 

ra c TO 

C m 00 
03 CD — 

E o £ 

<D e- £ 
jc o 2 
— o E 

3 — >* 
n -2 03 

2 o cl 


O) 

13 

o 


03 

c 

_ CD 
JC -O 

H TD 
03 C 
•q 03 


X 

CO 

> 

tr 

0) 

Q. 

O 


03 

0 < 


LU Q. 


03 

Bxig 

-q LU 03 

c a c 

™ o _g 

_i *> 

^ - c 

< o ro 


CO 
CD 


^ LU 


JD 

T3 

3 

O 

$ 


SJ 

0 

E 

0 JC 
-*—» ' 

0 

<— 

■§ 0 

0 r- 
03 -£ 

*— 

oB 

e * 

CJ 

TO 

C 0 
O c 

x ro ' 

25 0 
0 Lc 

CL 

0 0 


LU JD 

1— 0 


o O 

CD < 
O — 1 
X "O 
03 £ 

03 

03 
C/3 


C/3 

CD 

X 

03 


>N 

c 

3 

_J 

LU 

1- 

< 

_J 

_l 

_l 

0 

_l 

CL 

LU 

Q 

_l 

_l 

_J 

O 

< 

< 

< 

< 

E 





0 

CO 

O 

CO 

CO 

CO 

TO 

CO 







-r, 1/5 

T3 03 

CD 

N 03 
— 03 

TO 3 
O 03 

O 0 

-o ^ 

C T3 
03 3 

i§ 

F -2 

F ^ 
E CO 

_g £ 

3 — 

O <D 

* l 

03 C 
03 O 


03 


CO 


0 


V) 

a: 

o 

2 

L. 

03 

</> 

£ 

c 

3 

5 

5 

o 

o 

■fc 

c 

<0 

3 

o 

§ 

(/> 

C 


c 

o 

to 

XL 

o 

Q_ 

C/3 

c 

CO 


o 

03 

SI 

0 

2 CO 
O 03 

5 . 5 CL 

S" S m 
Si ® 111 
® -g 


03 


CO 

E 

c 

E 

o 

JO 


C 03 
03 E 

E «« 
o §i 
¥2 

3 | | 

o -B o 

> 03 CO 


S 0 


O 0 
TO CL 
CL O 

E C 
0 

.9 -C 

E £ 
o 
c 

o _ 

O CO 
0 


0 

0 

03 


03 

C 

o 3 .y 


C 

o 

> 

0 


o 

TO 

TO 

C 

o 


3 

o 8 

£ $ 
C CD 
— c 

2 0 


S-o 

"8 to 
>“ 0 
O) -s 

N ® 


£ 

TO 03 

L= E 

2 o 
^ c 
0 — 

O 0 - 
TO C 
CL O 

E = 
- 2 
0 0 
SZ CL 

I— o 


TO 0 
0 U 

So 

1— C 

° ^ 
0 


C 

o 

2 0 
0 


3 

-*—• 

O 

3 

0 


U 03 o 

^ .Q >i= 

E CO <_> 
0 O 
o TO 
0 J= CL 
JC o p 

I- c .E 


0 


0 


l_ 

Cl 

c 

0 

0 

E 

JC 



TO 

c 

0 

0 

1 — 

CC 

0 

TO 

03 

TO 

0 


i_ 

0 

0 

-4—» 

CO 

JC 

■0 

TO 

$ 

c 

C 

CO 

O 

TO . 

T3 

0 0 

C 

^ CO 

TO 

> 

CL LU 

CL 

CL 

E 9 

—> 
0 

-- CL 


.2 0 

0 

<4—* 

E £ 

TO 

0 *- 

$ 

C CO 

_ 

8 g 
« 0 

CO 

O 

O 

0 -J= 

0 

JC TO 

c ^ 
.2 cl 

JC 

c 

0 0 

0 

0 E 

0 

0 0 

TO 

o- ^ 

CL 

.1 03 

E 

— c 

_ 

0 CO 

TO 

E 3 

E 

IB 

c 

E O 

E 

0 ^ 

0 

J3 Z' 

JD 


II 

II 

0 "O 

sz <z 

l— TO 


0 

0 

O 

'£ 

0 

0 

0 

L. 

TO 

O 


C 

TO 

0 


0 

O 


S-J SJ ^ 


5 0 

O TO 
O . 
I CO 
0 

0 ”= 

t .03 


C 


0 

0 

0 

O 


0 

■4—» 

03 

CO 

TO 

c 

0 

0 

0 

b 

3 

IQ 

0 

O 

3 

CL 

X 

X 


0 

JD 

2 

3 

o 

$ 


° § 


0 


O 

TO 

CL 

E 

o 

E 

o 

c 

o 

o 

0 

0 


c_> 

0 


0 

E 

o 

CJ> 

c 

I 

$ 

o 

o 


_■ o 

TO C 

E E 
.2 0 


0 

o 

c 

■2 o 

i_ 

0 

CL TO 
X O 
CD '(/) 

> ^ 


O 


0 

-X 

T3 

3 

O 

$ 

TO 

0 


TO 

-*—• 

C 

0 

E 

c 

o 


> 

JD 


TO 


TO "O 
03 CD 

i— 

TO 


C 

0 

0 

L_ 

0 

$ 

0 

>, 

TO 

JC 


> 
c 
o 0 
TO - 
CL ■£, 

E TO 

o 32 


0 

0 


E 

o 

c 

o 

o 

0 


o 

TO 

0 

C 

o 


0 

0 


■O 

co 0 3 
_ c 

TO o 


TO 

4—» 

C 
0 0 


E 

c 

o 

i— 

5 0 

0 — 

o B 

§. § 

E o 

0 S' 

JC O 

1 - Z 


> 
TD 
■ 3=C TO 
03 _ 

0 ^ 
V— L_ 

- 03 

E ^ 


•2 c 


.2 o 


c 

o 

TO 

O 

3 

-o 

LU 


0 

O 

0 

3 


CO 

4-* 

c 

0 

E 

c 

o 

L_ 

> 

c 

LU 


LU 

5 E- 

=1 ^ 

|q 

w9 


CL — 


0 

0 

L. 

0 

> 

>> T3 

_Q TO 

X3 < 0 
0 -C 

. •<-> 

° 0 03 

0 i- C13 

0 > 

TO $ O 

^ O ^ 
3^ -Si 03 


5 


_Q 

TD 


> SZ 


r O D 
> O 0 
003 
£ o 

TO 0 

1 — x 

SE ® 

O TO CO 
i- TO 

2 $ 
TO ^ 

c r^- 
1 ^- 


o 


c 

TO TO 

E 0 

3 CL 
JC o 


0 

0 

C_> 

L_ 

3 

O 

0 

0 


N F- 


LO 


C 

TO 


TO 

L_ 

3 


6 . 2 > 3 

0 -C d) 

03 >> ^ 

^ 03 CD 

“ *i 

0 O o 

c ? § 

TO g- to 

O .c^ O J- 
CL TD 0 I— 


■5.^ 

L_ O 
0 QL 

U $ Z 
0 O ^ 
.tc a- 
SZ t_ C 

E 0 2 

03 ^ E 

^ o 0 
C 3 0 

2 C 03 

F 0 v_ 

G) c 0 

'0 0 E 

°° o -g 

0 c c 

0 .0 0 

0 "to 2 

^ 

CD 0 2 

CL^ 

o S 


(0 
L. 

3 
*-> 

3 

(J 0 


0 

O 

i— 

3 

o 
0 

_ 0 

3 q: 

0 


T3 

C 

CO 

o 


November 2015 


5-127 


NUREG-2168 


visual effect to these historic properties . 






Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


■o 

0) 

3 

■*-> 

c 

o 

o 


CO 

CO 

■ 

in 

_0 

X 

ro 


o 

O) 

o 

ro ® 
O > 


o 

0 

a 

E 


tf) 

■ 4-1 

c 

0 

E 

E 

o 

o 


ro 

<D 


a> 

a 

3 

o 

v) 

o 

X 


< 

CO 


< 

CO 



c Q- 3 
— O X 


0 

3 

o 


0 

o 

X 

"ro 

o 

U) 

o w 

_ 4 -> 

.2 £ 
"D Q. 

2 E 

C — 

o 


CO 


< 

CO 


< 

CO 


X 

C 

CD 

0 

3 0 

0 CO 

CD 0 
ouu 
0 CO 
C Q_ 


12 QC 

3 LL 


O 

$ 

CD 


O o C 


O 

■O' 


I? 

CD I— 


3 

O 

i— 

E 

o 


CD 


.2 a. 


u) 

TD 

CD 

X) 

C 

0 

0 


o 

LO 

■c 

CD 

CL 

CC 


CD 


0 

$ 

O 

Cl 


< O 

Q- o 
LLI t- 


CD 

O _0 
if) "o 

X L - 

E 5 
0 0 
E c 
o ^ 
~ E 
£ o 
o 

in 


TD 

C 

0 

O 
Q' 
Z 

O 

0 

XI 


CO 

CO 

CM 


0 


O 
CM 

■d 
0 
CL 

0 QC 

-Q LL 

12 O 

3 O 
O T- 


c 0 
E if) 

— 0 

x 0 

^ 0 
0 tr 

0 


a 

x 

3 


0 

o 

0 

Cl 


0 


c 

0 

3 


E 

0 — 


TD 
0 

0 

0 o 
0 o 
it= 10 
0 2 

0 -Q 

0 5 


u 


0 u) 


0 


0 

O 0 


0 0 


O X x S 


if) 

0 

if) 

o 

a 


0 £2 

£ z 

0 h= 

W . 

-9 ° 

o CD 

o T_ 
0 X 
0 0 
X 0. 


0 


X 
3 

o ^ 
0 
a 

e r 

— o 

0 0 

.2 0 

CT) -Q 

O E 

o 0 

I 2 

0 

X 


__ O) 

0 0 
> 0 

o ^ 

X 0 


if) 

0 
SI 

0 
if) 
3 
0 
O 
0 
X 

CO 
0 
O 

X 

x 
c 
O 0 

5 CO 
0 O 
CO 

E 
o 


0 

_0 

o 

3 

C 

£ 

0 

c 

0 

E 

o 


if) 

0 


u) 

c 

o 


0 

if) 

o 

X 

Id 

c 

o 


0 
X 

c 
0 
X 

0 

5% 

o 

O X 


0 

3 

C 

C 

0 


3 

E 

x 

0 


0 


3 

O 


0 

0 

LLI 

CO 

Q_ 

0 

x 

0 


if) 

0 

j*: 


c 

0 


NUREG-2168 


5-128 


November 2015 






Operational Impacts at the Proposed Site 


-o 

05 

3 

C 

Vi-> 

c 

o 

o 


CO 

CO 

■ 

in 

jX> 

n 

ro 


o 

05 

0 ) 

TO 05 

o > 


0 


o 

TO 

Q. 

E 


CO 

*-> 

c 

0 ) 

E 

E 

o 

o 


TO 

<D 


05 

O 

L. 

3 

O 

C/5 

05 

X 


05 

u. 

=5 "O 

o £ 
g- on 
0 ) P 
c CO 

B c 

TO TO 

X 

TO 


TO 

C 

o 

TO 

Q_ 

3 

O 

C5 

o 

X 

CD 

O 

3 

x 

CD 


3 

CO 

05 

X 

3 

O 

$ 

> 

05 

O 

o 

c 

x 

o 

05 


J3 

3 

o 


TO 
W $ 

a3 < 
-if o: 
O < 


< 

< 

< 

< 

X 





0 

co 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

O 

✓-'i 


C/5 

O 

x 

z 

$ 

O 

05 

x 

05 05 

-Q c 

X 05 

3 E 
O 05 
$ Q. 
05 -- 
CO 05 
05 


£ 05 
Q_ c/5 

2-8 
CO C 

$ -2 
O c 

■O CO 

"to E 

o 2 

O-TO E 

Q- CL TO 
TO 3 i- 

2 

to O a 


c 

o 

TO £L 
X CO 
TO 05 

cr .£ 

C 05 

o x 

— TO 
O 05 

1 ^ 

o £ 

O to 

— 05 
TO <f 
C ^ 

° ^ 
CX 05 

-2 TO 

>0 C 

$ W 

_o a 

TO X 

= -2 
TO < 

^ TO 
TO C 

-Q o 

2 ‘to 

TO C 

?! 

CO — 

C X 
C 
TO 
CO 


TO 

E 

3 


c 8 

— to 

TO TO 
-C m 
O to 

ra ^ 

.2 »3 

■° c 
o o 

CO o 
TO 05 
CO "q 

o 2 

Q Q_ 


c 

TO 


TO 

£ CO 

O c 

_ CO 

2 E 

O TO 
CD X 


05 

$ E 
8^5 


TO 


03 

X 

CO 

, . 

05 

- 

03 

CO 


C 

k_ 

3 

g 

CD 

3 


c 

0 

ro 

05 

0 

CD 

05 

0 

c 

CD 

C/5 

05 

05 

05 

to 

O 


TO 2 P 
W * O 
TO O C5 

> 05 TO 

> X CO 

N E-g 

i c 

c TO 

E 


TO 

"O 
TO 

■o x 
c 
TO 

co " C 
CL TO 05 
■— O -O 
05 0 


CL5 -t-j 

co -!=: 
TO O 
05 O 

| S ~ 

> TO C 


TO 


co o"J5 

CL 


TO 


-O ~ §> 
05 O $ 

oco - 

Q- to 
X5 ~ 


CO -X 


o 

CL 

TO 

TO 


TO TO 

CO £ 
05 _ 

a to 

o c 

Q- a. 


CD 

LU 

CQ 

X 


TO 

$ 

O 

Cl 


O TO 
= TO 

O c 


05 


o 

TO 

C co 

II 

C TO 
TO 3 

O to 

c j: 

B 2 

TO TO 

I® 

£ c 

£ TO 


C/5 

TO 

£ 

05 

> 

+-> 

O 

TO 

O 

X 

TO 

L_ 

c 

o 


c 

TO 

TO 

5= 


n 

CO 

O 2 0- 

° ° [T 


C/5 

*■> 

C 

05 

■o 

a 

o 

< 

X 

05 

+-> 

TO 

3 
-*—* 
C/5 

o 

0. 


3 P 

o 2 

^ TO 
05 0 
X £ 
*- TO 
i- X 
O CL 

o 

03 ^ 
-X °- 
co Cl 
"O 0 

g to 

!t= -Q 
TO O 

W E 

05 

^ X 

O § 

m O 

co >2 

X -o 

? s 

CO c 
CO .9 

£ £ 

C -D 
TO co 

< o 
CO o 
Q <- 

TO 

O X 

uu § 
CO 13 
0- $ 

-05 

£ o 
•O o 

TO C 

.1 TO 
> 

0 g 

>- o 

t o 

TO CO 

co E 


CO 

c 

TO 

■g 

C5 

O 

< 

TO 

CO 

TO 

CD 

c 

05 

TO 

TO 

Q 


< 


n 

X 

X 


O 
X o 


X o 

^ CO 
CO 
X 


O 

o 

'o 

TO 

* X. 

TO 
CD o 


O 

c 


0 

JD 


TD 

C 

TO 

TO 

TO 

"O 

o 


TO 


O 

_ 0 
TO g 

JC C= 
TO 

£ Q. 
TO O 

o 


CO 


0 

o 

c 

TO 

Q. 

TO 

O 

O 

TO 

TO 


3 

O 

£ P 


TO 


TO 
TO 
CO P 


CD 

XI 


CO 

c 

o 


O TO 

E •- 

TO W 
"O 0 

_co S 

3 to 
co to 

E E 

CO CO 

Is 

[S -o 

TO 

o 

o 
TO 
Cl 
co 


c 

TO 

■g 
o 
o 

TO 

X 

0 CD 

TO < 

H? 

TO 


TO 

TO 

E 

o 

_co 

TO 

CO 

TO 

CO 

o 

"O 

c 

TO 

■g 

o 

o 

TO 

X 

£ 

CQ 

< 


_TO 

n 

TO 


X 

X 


Q.XI 
o CO 
TO X 


< ^ 
^ 00 

■ C\l 

srz 

^ i— 

CO ^ 

Z o 

h— 2 


X 
— X 

ra x 

0 CO 

l=> 

o o 

i_ 

co 


o 

TO 


3 CO ° 
X co 
0-2 

£§ 

TO O 

« -C 
< O 
CD 0 

a r 

M- O 
O O 
CO TO 
0 0 
o *- 
c >- 

0 2 
O' 

TO 0 
CO -0 
C 

o 'o 

o u 

_ >> 

TO C 

c 

0 

E 

c 
o 


is 

TO 

2 

P 05 o 

co -§ 2 

O o X 
X co < 
CO co O 
X o ^ 

£ ^ X 

.52 0 X 

TO 05 cn 

0 'co 

*->3 0 

0 .0 ~ 
■g 0 0 
o c 

O 0 0 
0 c -o 

0 -Q 

>> o 
o 


> 

c 

0 _ 

0 c 
-0 9 1 

I— CO 


0 
L. 

0 
> 

0 

CO 0 

CD E 

X 

w o x: 

X o 2 
0 0 § 

S ° I 

0 i2 0 
^ ” 'a 
0 T5 o 
> 0 CO 

0 ° m 

ll 0 0 

Ifc "O CO 
TO c 
— O 0 
CO or 


0 

0 

> 

0 

co 


i2 

c 

0 

■g 

o 

o 

< 

0 

i _ 

TO 

> 

0 

CO 


0 CD 


05 

_C 

TO 


CO O 

li 
-2 0 
TO ^ 

TO CD 

Cl X 

E co 

O X 

TO £ 

is 

CO 

L_ 

O 

O 
TO 
TO 


05 

0 X 

TO O 

£ >n 


c 

TO 


TO 
£ 

° 3 
TO O 

s s 

s g 

co TO 

3 


TO 

.Q 

32 

3 

o 

<: 

TO 


C 

TO 

■g 

o 

o 


cr 

TO 

CO 

c 

o 


c 

o 

TO 


TO 

C 


CO 

CD . 

X to 
CO 05 

or Si. 

—. i_ 

— 3 
TO O 

"O 0 
0 £ 

TO 3 

o o 

O r- 


0 

J3 


0 

L_ 

0 

X 

X 

< 

c 


TO ■- 

i— 

0 
X 

o 


TO CJ 

0 "O 

0 £ 
> _c 

0 05 

B 0 

o ^ 

CO 

TO -ti 

E 1 

TO 0 

3 -9 

o- o 

s ^ 

0 -O 
O 0 
O TO 

"O CO 
£ TO 
SZ O 
05 05 
TO >n 
5 TO 


0 CO 
1- CO 
O 0 


>> TO 
~ CO 

'3 0 

TO C 
X5 O 

2 0 • 
X .9 0 
■ ^ O 

0 E 0 
£ o to 
so E 


o £ 

0 o 
E 
o 

Cl 
O 

O Q. 

Q..52 


CD 


T5 

> 
w C 

E ^ 

o .£ 

i_ 

CO 

co c 
c o 
o — 

w TO 
J5 3 
3 X 
X O 
O X 
X 


CD 

E 

o 

o 

c 

o 


^ o 
O >. 
>i-0 

C O 

o c 
c 


o 

— 0 

0 TO 
O — 
TO O 
X C 

E o 

X 
co 
o 
TO 
X 

E 


g 0 

^ co 
CD O 

TO £ 

0 30 

0 O 
X TO 
— X 

ro -i 


0 

E 


0 

CO 


o § 

c X 
CO TO 

O a 

^ >> 

I E 

"co 
3 


o 

05 

05 

X 

X 

y 

CO 


c* 

h* 

05 

X 

X 

o 

x 

0 

a 

0 

o 

U- 

X 

> 

c 

0 

"g 

L— 

H— 

3 

co 

0 

X 


- E — 

/11 

o 


0 

L_ 

0 

X 

0 


>. 

0 


TO 

C 
0 

E 
c 
o x 

TO 

> X 

c ♦- 

X 0 

- £ 
£ TO 

■in E 


o ® 

Z § 

£•? 

C 0 
TO 0 

0 £ 

X TO 

I— X 


ro 


o 

_co 

TO 

0 

U_ 

TO 

co 

X 

c 


X 

c 

> 

c. 

0 


c 

0 


X 

0 

o 

0 


>. 

TO 

TO 

§ ^ 

.y to 

0 "2 

3 

Q. TO 

§.« 

_ co 

ro c 

Jr, 0 

£ E 

TO 3 
X -0 

CD — 

£ TO 


5 ® 

£ 0 

0 x 

TO o 
0 0 
If 


November 2015 


5-129 


NUREG-2168 


















































































































































































































































NRC FORM 335 

( 12 - 2010 ] 

NRCWO 3 7 


U 3 . NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 


1 REPORT NUMBER 

(AtlgnM Of NRC. AM VoL, 8upp, Arr, 
irnj Add*n<Jum Numbw*, liny) 


BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET 

(Sm tr&rva&i on (fM rrwn) 


NUREG-2168 
Volume 1 


2 TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the PSEG Site, Final Report 


3. DATE REPORT PUBLISHED 


MONTH 


YEAR 


5 AUTHOR(S) 

See Appendix A. 


November 


4 FIN OR GRANT NUMBER 


2015 


fl. TYPE OF REPORT 

Technical 

7 PERIOD COVERED (Induilv* D«te») 


8 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION ♦ NAME AND ADDRESS (H NRC, provide Divwon, Offc* or Rpgoo, U. S Nudotr Regulatory Commuwon. «nd mining «ddre**. «f 

contractor, provide name and maBing addra**) 

Division of New Reactor Licensing 
Office of New Reacton 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
Washington, DC 20555-0001 

9 SPONSORING ORGANIZATION ■ NAVE AND ADDRESS (If NRC, type ’Same at iPove". It cor tractor, provide NRC Diyinon, Office or Region, U. S Nudear Regulatory 
Com mi non, and mailing add re a* ) 

Same as above 


10 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

Docket No. 52-043 

11 A8STRACT(20C wonJ* or let*) 

This environmental impact statement (EIS) has been prepared in response to an application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) by PSEG Power, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear, LLC (PSEG), for an early site permit (ESP). The proposed action 
requested in the PSEG application is the NRC issuance of an ESP for the PSEG Site located adjacent to the existing Hope Creek and 
Salem Generating Stations. 

This final environmental impact statement includes the preliminary analysis that evaluates the environmental impacts of the proposed 
action and alternatives to the proposed action . 

After considering the environmental aspects of the proposed NRC action, the NRC staffs preliminary recommendation to the 
Commission is that the ESP be issued as requested. The recommendation is based on (1) the application submitted by PSEG, 
including Revision 4 of the Environmental Report (ER), and the PSEG responses to requests for additional informatioi/from the 
NRC and USACE staffs; (2) consultation with Federal, State Tribal, and local agencies; (3) the staffs independent review; (4) the 
staffs consideration of comments related to the environmental review that were received during the public scoping process and the 
public comment period following the publication of the draft EIS; and (5) the assessments summarized in the EIS, including the 
potential mitigation measures identified in the ER and this EIS. 


12 KEY WORDS/DESCRIPTORS (U*t word* or ph'iMi that will • »»»! re*«ercfi«'* m locating r« report ) 

PSEG ESP 

13 AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

unlimited 

PSEG Site 

14 SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, FEIS 

National Environmental policy Act, NEPA 

unclassified 

NL) REG-2168 

(Tlvt Report 

unclassified 


15 NUMBER OF PAGES 


18 PRICE 


N«C FORM 135 (12-2010) 















































































































Federal Recycling Program 



























































































AofiowKia 



LC ACQUISITIONS 


M43 465 257 





O 

n 

T] 

O 

> 

r~ 

CD 

C 

U) 

z 

m 

CD 

CD 


c 

:> P 

> m 

CD > 

I 73 

Z 73 
O m 
— I O 

O C 


o 

o 

M 

o 

ai 

cn 

CJl 

I 

o 

o 

o 


O 

73 

-< 

O 

O 


CD 

CD 

O 

Z 


1 


UNITED STATES 









































■<*o/v trs * 

o Xr & " 

* 

* A 


- V” v;^v oKo y;^*“^c 

g trS* ® ^ M M r 1 VV - iWW? * 

a \ Z Cf//rR -fci\\\v C_ f"l *" 4 


'♦ A /}^>\ ‘ ^ “■ 

* liiS»; «“*<£ ° '^ xw ^ 

o ^ 

> 


* ^ 



* ov * MM 1 » ^cr 0> <M best * T° ; £ 

: *°% ’HHK? ^ rWS; *°+k -fi§h o ^°* V 

\o° v*lS*v 0 v*^v v 

y . * * * »v ^ v* v 11 * 0 / .cr s s * * ** ^ v* * °* x» 

«JSI* f«? V 2 JH|s ff = 1211* 


% A - „/, 2 

•4k * ©JIll^ ■* aN 1 

/-rr to > , ^c * yv 

/ C 0H C< ^ A % A 

w cr * */<r y) ,4°’ A 

A-o* °^^;» * 

— * *°v : 

‘■^'**p° v *» 0 

v ' ‘ .-%?' v-^£v \ 

°o 



V 


gS* 'A* «>. ’'swswv, -V ‘V V. a 'ts tf' j 

, * 'Vaa^V * * a^Vi^*^° 

: "WMill* V* 


<4^° 

•At 

o AO* t 
r 0~> Ck * 

v^r;%V'”V 

* .iAwAl o X- A 



v* /\ vSP/« 

, * ;>>»>% 9 ;v>* 

w ?^b* ^ *&i#* ; 

; ^ **^w * iPv *^^°*° ^ -* 

* ° J V 

^ « Sig* 

O 



° W 


z 
« 

^ ^ 4? 

A** 4 '^ «‘•'*> < V < '°*‘ V 
\ ^ fsmc^ * .o 


f’ VJ tr«?' ° giS ’ '^p^S ' J j' 

?/ /\ lw/ /\ «;/ 

#%&&; ' y^sAC 'A: 




t6 

V'd^ 


r o 

'* O A^* 

</> «v A N 

w * 



ov * SBT^f* * ’■ f ‘o r “ » -o> 

’^K 5 , 0 ^ v°-<k * 

p s . * ^S # * ono °V^ * «^Sx'" ”>°^ * * ^V 3ao ’v, 

t* <w> ,i 

?/ /\ *m- # v \ \.. ■ 

‘ A° 0 « t| ^ « l " < < ^ " 0l> h * 

0° A * ^s«»w«,' , ’' f °0 A* * <*#&?- ■'- ^ 

b~A .'A; * 

^ \W§* *°x i 

°'~ r? <h> J *>„'r n l* ^-' v -o, 

V v’-’ ° 


O 


r O ^ 




« O V< % ^°°s 

jv ^ o^ s s 

AT ^ ' 

► <r>. c oNG, <\> * * A * ^ 1 •» > ^ X r j£‘ C C 

P * '-f'l ** rr ♦ ^ ^ x'i A -i- ^ rr ^ ^ 

Ao* ° nSl ma » ^V « Bjr &Qp t Yo* 0 * b) V * B&&5* T>-^ ° - 

^ 13SI9; ^>4 * r. 

/^:->S,‘ ° ,H ?V'' 1 4 ° :v# ' 

"■ «' , vrf?tefcY 'if. A$’ ‘ r jA%#Vc' ■%<• vV ^ -^ <nre *- * A * - * 

% ^ ° |ii * :§mm% %<f ». . n T i :: . 

; A>bt. lwm$: .4>^. ia«fi«° ^>bt, .«s»* 


w 

«5o. 


1» "S"®‘, V'V .'!»? 

P* v/\ *,pp * ^ 

1 ;>WV° v k V% N A/V* >V: 

4 A 


r; ;mP 7 , 0 ^ 

sFyJ'y'? , ^VgV'A 

I*, W:fi|5\ 

# r cfbJ'o U o A 

,* .O^ *<3,,^ <.*s 4 A . 

<?.%£.% 

* .v ,4r ^ mk 



v ^ ’'.^^ i '° ■A°a - 

■ c ° *’ 


^ <o A* ^ 

* w * 

: *°*k * 

v, %,7' *Ap° V^o, 
'I'o *” «* ^ ^> 


*V v^aV 

cpV^A V, 




‘ 0 ^cO»c,\^ ^ S >\« ‘'* t V° 

c ^ * sm^ t ~ 

h * Wb^\ b 3 

■V" V°: r A’““°y^;*;*.\' n V 

»*, :0k\ %<? S c 

* \^P/ ? 

y A< u \V" * ^ * ***X^>* L, *Y<i 



r> 



z Vy 1 

32 

1 • 

Qu 
— > 


o to 

CC 

































































? * O 


v 

° 

V ° 

V^77«\0 ..- < * 

i c ong. ^ ** 

O u * 




X K 


P <£” * 

■'« 


’VV. .V 
* %><& * 



>4 

$ 


•o* °4pia* *o? «Jp>; w °4ifflf* w *1 

Vfe^V V^5v v£V \> 

m\o* - V* /Jfe: ^ 

SiL n ^-v Iwl* ;«?.* ImA* ^ 


► w; ^ \vw// V 

/4/° * l * o^ C° N °« # •t'o'*" ** lI **< 

p* vd* °4ilia-> w ‘JiriS 0 : 

^o. 


4 . o ? ' % 

.d^°r*^ 

V*0* 0 &>w^%-:'.y: * 

•in * 

* *~r\ *\ -V C 

/.’‘A;'- 1 */ 

'♦ ^ *W/a‘ c ' ^ ^ * 

V <V * 4\-M:Vh O 'fys 3 y 
c<bdV ^ ImP o /yA | 

A -O ri>-_ *>/Vaster ,*> „ ^ V 

: Aft *° * ^ A° 


> 0 *.W/ 0 o^ * 


■ft ft 



^ *' s *^Rr* v ^ > < - 

< '°« ^/ c .»«, /V****^** L "^ 

%<$ o <#i2A ^ *K 4 . 

^°y:^> c v 

%/_ -&. .5$- * jAW/h, <1 A« 


A~W %< 

/V ^ 


* </\ IW/ ^ v \ IW/ </^ ; 0 ** 

*<&/>•** °+o* * * **/> L '*.V° * ’■'* cA' 

o *m>y.\. *° ?a 



i€m&: &%. ' ; ^^ a = <4 

V*" 1 * o*°?» * * ^V““°°>^ 

* ^jdK.v \o- «, v * , 

0 ^ - Y > vV ^ ^ 

o ^c?» 


k Sis® * ° 

o ^^VT’ -v ^K +23fl$r * & ^ . ° s 

V° “ ^ 0 -^ c oho,;\ ' ^ v s s^ L "^ 

;\/ o*^; ffgfc 

o ^ *3®SJB* vo^ * 0^0 


r --J ^ ^ 




*n n * 


v bv 

^ ^ ^P^<K v> ^ ^ 

:ao° Vw\^ . V' 

^ v \ ^"\ <^ V V -» -a-s- V r V ■*. v-»-. 

,^ 4 -\%'° ’ °^ ^ i, *^° ’ x >k°- ° # ^v * * 

'a&Ss am-. %/ •■'*»>'■ •’ 

o 


k J' Ck % 

r^'\ 

^ ^ .rA^^/k, o X< 


o 4* ,4 4 
*. : 

* v°-^, * 

, . Ao° ^ '■ 
” V:»‘. 


7 qr t * ^MVc^is 5 v Tr _ ■. ^ 

\ ft v ^ O n +iT 

■ W ;»!V;||; W f & '.V f. 


* ^ * 

* »p^." 

❖ ^o h> * 

> A v ^ Vi 

j. ,r 1 vv.** 

'Tr.cr 5 « 


w ° 41821» ^ ‘»#: Ao 4 ,° 

\ ^ e lMv°V» ^ v* 

^ ^ , O °+*'n ^ s.** V 

^ ft ^ ^ ^ ^ “ 0 


v /,;*, ’<x ^>- 


■ <rSfa* :l» ; v^ ^ 2 

> iff; /\#* 5 lp/\»;/v 

^o^ w ^ /<#&» v timt: 

W$: $8* ym§: ^ ^ \m9: >°^, ’H& 

,ono !v<^*°'X Vk 


rf» ^AiC^Cs' v. ^ A < 

^ ^ V o n ^ 

^ *3SO Q ^ y * 0 

i-Jv . s * ^ ?*> <> \> V °A . k , 

<y .% t , v * <5 o «> yjh 

O > jtQrs^* ^ ♦iwAlo t. 




Ijv j * aVA 5 #Mf - • 

3 * A v Va o ‘M/Mw aT <c/ vA« 

,»c <f V * * 5 >V l, *.V° * ^ 0 ^ 6 c—«A 



P j, \0 J h* ^g, 0 0 - 

‘ C <K y^A -«®Sfcf* X A 





























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































